EE4NJ-04.27.2012 - Foundation for Educational Administration

Report
April 27, 2012
NJPSA/FEA
Nancy Richmond, Ed.D.
John Schoener, Ph.D.










Superintendent?
Principal?
Assistant Principal?
Supervisor?
Director?
Teacher?
Board of Education member?
Pilot One district?
Pilot Two district?
Not sure?




On your table, please find a paper that says EE4NJ.
Use one of the markers provided and write a
word, a sentence, or a question that comes to mind
when you think of the proposed Excellent
Educators for New Jersey reform initiative.
Do this without any conversation with your tablemates.
Now share around the table what you wrote and
why.
As a group select one theme, pattern, or big idea
that emerged from your table conversation that
you can share with the large group.
1.
2.
3.
What are the details and timelines of the new
teacher evaluation system?
What are the characteristics, implementation
guidelines, and training opportunities of the
state-approved teacher evaluation models?
What should school leaders do now to begin a
process of preparing for the 2012-2013 school
year?


Non-pilot districts
Pilot Two Districts
4. What should principals
and supervisors know
about the student
achievement measures
that will be 50% of a
teacher’s evaluation?
5. What do these changes
mean to principals and
supervisors in terms of
their observation and
feedback practices?



The goal of NJPSA/FEA is to support school
leaders in navigating through the NJDOE
frameworks for the new teacher evaluation
system.
NJPSA/FEA has deep concerns about several
aspects of the proposed teacher evaluation
system. It is our responsibility to help you
understand and respond to what is required
by the State.
Today will provide an opportunity for your
voices to be heard.
Nationally


Teacher effectiveness is the most important
in-school factor for improving student
achievement.
Traditionally teacher evaluation systems have
not been designed to determine levels of
effectiveness which differentiate a range of
teacher performance.

The Obama administration highlights teacher
evaluation reform as a key commitment tied
to federal policy and funding opportunities.
At least 32 other states have recently changed
their teacher evaluation systems.
Troubling achievement gaps
 Current evaluations are
subjective and fail to impact
teaching
 50% of college students never
graduate




2010-2011 Governor’s Educator Effectiveness
Task Force
2011-2012 Pilot One implemented
2012-2013 Capacity building for non-Pilot Two
districts
-------Or------

2012-2013 Pilot Two implemented
2013—2014 Full roll-out and implementation in
all districts



Part 1 – Review what is expected of all districts
in 2012-2013, including overview of models
Part 2 – Explore what Pilot Two will look like
for 2012-2013; react and respond.
Part 3 – Consider how these changes will
impact our observation and feedback behavior.








Importance of meaningful and constructive
conversations
Stakeholder engagement is critical
Evaluator and teacher training is critical
Need to build basic assessment literacy and data
analysis skills
Need for proper evaluation of non-classroom
teaching staff
Workload increases for administrative staff
Challenge in developing assessments for nontested grades and subjects
Trust and a sense of urgency are critical
Capacity Building
Requirements
(from NJDOE Memo, March 28, 2012)
Form a District
Advisory
Committee to
ensure
stakeholder
engagement in
evaluation
reform








Teachers from each school level in the district
Central office administrators overseeing the
teacher evaluation process
Administrators conducting evaluations
Superintendent
Special education administrator
Parent
Board of Education member/s
Representatives of other groups, at
Superintendent’s discretion
2. By January 2013, adopt an
evidence-supported teacher
practice instrument and
procedures for applying the
instrument (handout page 8-9)
3. From January 2013 through August 2013, test
and refine implementation of the observation
instruments and rubrics
 Scales or dimensions that capture multiple and
varied aspects of teaching performance
 Differentiation of a range of teaching
performance
 Objective validation on the aspects of both
concurrent and construct validity
4. By June 2013, thoroughly train
teachers
5. By August 2013, thoroughly train
observers
6. Progress Reports in January and
June, 2013
Where are you now?
What is next for your district or
school?
Share what your district
has learned and
completed so far.




Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching
Dr. Robert Marzano’s Causal Teacher
Evaluation Model
McREL Teacher Evaluation System
Dr. James Stronge’s Model
As a group, create a short list of what your district
values with regard to selecting a teacher
evaluation model…
…about the process
…about the product
In your small group…
 Review the information about each model
 Identify at least one area of strength for each
model
 Determine what questions you would ask the
vendor about their model



Task: In your small group read and discuss the
following quotes about creating a sense of
urgency (pages 15-16)
Discuss: Which quote particularly resonates
with your group? Is there a quote you do not
agree with?
Brainstorm: Create a list of activities which
might be used to create a sense of urgency and
build a foundation for change




Convene a District Evaluation Advisory
Committee
Secure a Teaching Practice Instrument
Develop and Implement a Communication
Plan
Coordinate Teacher Professional Development
Developing Measures of Student Achievement for
Tested and Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you see as the advantages of this pilot
requirement?
What do you see as the challenges of
implementation of this requirement?
What impact might this requirement have on the
culture and climate of your school?
What concerns/issues would you like brought to
the attention of NJDOE about this requirement?
Advantages
 For Special Education – there is now more
accountability for teachers and students
 Testing non-tested areas will align/integrate
curriculum
Challenges
 Tiered percentages (Core vs. Non-Core) of how
much student performance counts is
problematic
 How about inclusive teachers? Who is
responsible? Potential for animosity and for
teachers to be unwilling to team teach.
 Regular Ed teachers who have inclusion
students? What will be the impact?






Snapshot vs. multiple indicators is problematic
Growth? How to show growth with teachers
whose students come in at high level – how much
growth can they expect to see?
PARRC assessments represents a major change;
bad time to put so much weight/importance on
the scores
General shift in intensity of the testing – emphasis
on testing, not on instruction
Grade inflation
Equity between CORE and non-CORE – 2 different
kinds of tests – using a test for a purpose other
than what it was designed
Impact on culture
 Trust is compromised by the realities of these
guidelines – cultural barrier – divisive situation
 Trust between co-teachers is compromised –
who is responsible?
 Long-term – what will they do with these
results? Will they be made public?
 Collaboration vs. personal accountability
 Talent pool – math and LAL – will disappear
 Merit pay?


Undermines pipeline to principalship. Who
will want to be a principal?
CORE vs. non-CORE – more definition needed
– Is it by Subject? Or Certification?
Additional Concerns for NJDOE








Pilot 1 concerns were not addressed in Pilot 2 How will
findings from Pilot 2 be used?
External evaluator? More definition is needed on this.
Time? How will this be done by principals who are already
overextended?
Budget concerns – how will districts pay for this mandate?
Misuse of tests - were not designed for this purpose
Fairness across system
Piloting changes like this should be done in State-controlled
districts where there are not so many variables that cannot
be managed.
How will these data be used to improve teacher
preparation?
Formal Observations
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you see as the advantages of this pilot
requirement?
What do you see as the challenges of
implementation of this requirement?
What impact might this requirement have on the
culture and climate of your school?
What concerns/issues would you like brought to
the attention of NJDOE about this requirement?
Advantages

Double-scored – no in-building bias

Many new principals have inherited a tenure staff – now there is
hope to take action.

Increased shared responsibility

Administrators spending more time in classrooms may result in
fewer discipline issues

Principals will be forced to become instructional leaders – more
time in classrooms

External evaluator – another view

Decrease in Donaldson hearings – more than one eye on the
teacher

More time in classrooms will allow for curriculum monitoring and
monitoring for implementation of common core

Double evaluator – learn about other parts of district
Challenges
 Time and resources/accountable for many other things
 15-minute observation – how much can we infer from
such a short time in the classroom ?
 Small district – where do we get the external evaluator?
 External evaluator – vendor? outsourced?
 How about teachers who are working with student
teachers – how will the teacher’s observations be
completed?
 It will be necessary to delegate to teachers former
principal responsibilities
 External evaluator does not know school, context –
“drive by” evaluations
Impact on Climate
 Tiered system – different numbers for different
teachers – this is divisive
 Resolving a conflict if there is a discrepancy on
the double scoring
 No equity between teachers
 “Got-cha” mentality – increased presence in
classrooms with “checklists”
 Increased “traffic” in classrooms will provide a
disruption to students.
Additional Concerns for NJDOE
 Does research support a model of using
student performance and increased time in
classrooms to improve teacher performance?
Where is the evidence that this approach will
improve teacher performance and student
performance?
Classroom Observations, Scoring,
Feedback, and Support
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you see as the advantages of this pilot
requirement?
What do you see as the challenges of
implementation of this requirement?
What impact might this requirement have on the
culture and climate of your school?
What concerns/issues would you like brought to
the attention of NJDOE about this requirement?
Advantages
 Inter-rater reliability among observers
 Greater dialogue among observers – learning
from each other
 Counts as two observations
Challenges
 There will be major challenges around
scheduling
 There will be a need for collaboration/making
decisions about what should be addressed
 Post-observation conference? Together? More
scheduling challenges.
Culture/Climate
 Tone will change with two observers in classroom
 Community impact/smaller districts/much
involvement with parents – time away from
building
 Principals will still be held accountable for what
happens in your building even if they are in other
buildings doing observations
 Multiple observers during conference is
intimidating
 Superintendent may lack of hands-on supervisory
experience
Additional Concerns for NJDOE
 Nothing additional
What do these changes mean to principals
and supervisors in terms of their
observation and feedback practices?
Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery
The teacher effectively engages students in
learning by using a variety of instructional
strategies in order to meet individual learning
needs.

State what you observed

Provide evidence to support your observation

State the impact of what you observed

Provide the opportunity for reflection and
guidance
Supervision that Improves
Teaching and Learning
An opportunity to reflect on our own
thinking about supervision………
Nancy Richmond, Ed.D.
609-860-1200 X102
[email protected]
John Schoener, Ph.D.
212-666-3320
[email protected]

similar documents