Welcome!

Meet Our New Business Administrator

Mr. Timothy e. Kelley

A Review of DOE initiatives

march 16, 2012

Staff development day

Integration of Federal and State Reforms and Initiatives

• Change in ways schools and districts are evaluated and labeled

• Emphasis on teacher and principal evaluation

• Transition to the Common Core including alignment of assessments

• Focus on the achievement gap

• Review of how funding is spent

NCLB Waiver

Race to the Top 3

EE4NJ

NCLB waiver – some basics

• Replaces “In Need of Improvement” designations with Priority, Focus, and Reward Schools

• Removes certain requirements/restrictions regarding use of NCLB funds

• Requires – change to a student growth model in lieu of

the current system (Note: More information regarding the Student Growth Percentiles will be provided at future building-based meetings.)

– revisions to the models for teacher and principal evaluation

– reports to the public on student progress and performance levels of teachers and administrators

Nclb waiver - continued

• Includes – review and revision of QSAC

– emphasis on college and career readiness / 21st Century Learning

– focus on closing the achievement gap

– alignment of state assessments to the Common Core State Standards

– development of model curriculum

– more detailed and timely assessment data

For Detailed information visit:

http://www.state.nj.us/education/grants/nclb/waiver/waiver.pdf

“Reward” schools – two sub-categories

I. Reward High Performing • remarkable success for all of its

students and for each subgroup • met measures of Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) for all of their students and subgroups during the 2010-2011 school year

• have a school-wide proficiency rate above 90 percent (that is, 90 percent of the school’s students met or exceeded State standards as measured by our statewide assessments)

• at the high school level, have a graduation rate above 90 percent.

II. Reward High Progress

• These schools may or may not be meeting AYP

• Showing a remarkable rate of progress based on student growth percentiles

“priority” schools- three sub-categories

I. when ranked by the percent of the students who passed the test school-wide, these schools’ percentage of students passing the test was among the lowest across the state

II. high schools among the lowest performing schools in the State (as described in the preceding paragraph) that also have a low, school-wide graduation rate

III. those previously identified as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 schools under the federal School Improvement Grant program

“focus” schools – three sub-categories

I. schools that have the largest within-school gaps between the highest-achieving subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroups

II. schools that simply have subgroups whose performance, as compared to the rest of the state, is particularly low

III. high schools whose graduation rate is less than 60 percent

Based on current ASK data, our schools are not

on any list (priority, focus,

or reward)

EE4NJ Excellent Educators for New Jersey

• Pilot this year - Alexandria Township (Hunterdon); Bergenfield (Bergen), Elizabeth (Union), Monroe Township (Middlesex), Ocean City (Cape May), Pemberton Township (Burlington), Red Bank Borough (Monmouth), Secaucus (Hudson), West Deptford Township (Gloucester), and Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional (Salem).

• School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding will participate in the pilot. These include: Camden High School, Cramer College Preparatory Lab School, and U.S. Wiggins College Preparatory Lab School (Camden); Cicely Tyson High School (East Orange), Essex Vocational, West Caldwell Campus (Essex); Fred Martin School of Performing Arts, Lincoln High School, and Snyder High (Jersey City), Lakewood High School (Lakewood); Barringer High School, Brick Avon Academy, Central High, Dayton Street, Malcolm X Shabazz High School, Newark Vocational High School, and West Side High School (Newark); Dr. Frank Napier School of Technology, and Number 10 (Paterson); Abraham Clark High School (Roselle Borough).

• Newark through a separate grant

Pilot components

• Annual teacher evaluations based on standards of effective teacher practices and clear expectations;

• Multiple measures of teacher practice and student performance, with student academic progress or growth as a key measure;

• A summative rating that combines the scores of all the measures of teaching practice and student achievement;

• Four summative rating categories that clearly differentiate levels of performance; and

• A link from the evaluation to providing professional development opportunities that meet the needs of educators at all levels of practice

Task Force Recommended Framework for the New Teacher Evaluation System

Q: What components will comprise teacher evaluations? A: Teacher evaluations will comprise equal parts teacher practice (inputs) and direct measures of student achievement (outputs). Within each of those components, multiple measures will be used.

Pilot – Framework for Evaluation

• For non-tenured teachers, conduct a minimum of three formal observations (i.e., with pre-and post-conference input and feedback) for one instructional period or a minimum of 40 minutes;

• For tenured teachers, conduct a minimum of two formal observations (i.e, with pre- and post-conference input and feedback) for one instructional period or a minimum of 40 minutes;

• Conduct a minimum of two informal observations (i.e, without pre- and post-conferences) with feedback;

• Prepare one summative evaluation that results in a mutually-developed teacher professional development plan;

Pilot – Framework for Evaluation

• At least once per year, conduct teacher self-assessments of their own practice and compare with the evaluators’ assessments to calibrate teachers’ personal vision of effective practice;

• Promote an environment for supportive and accurate feedback on teacher practice; and

• Provide teachers with professional learning experiences to support improvement in teacher practice.

• Note: An evaluation system for principals will follow one year behind the teacher evaluation implementation

2012-2013 school year

• Two options:

– 20-30 additional districts selected to participate in a year 2 pilot

– Remaining districts organize for 2013-2014 when all districts will be required to use the model

State Recommended / Approved Teacher Evaluation Models

• Danielson (Teachscape) – our current model is based on the Danielson work

• McRel

• Stronge

• Marzano

• District-developed with DOE approval

What choices are we considering? What steps are we taking?

• When pilot / grant info is distributed for 2012-2013, we will consider participating

• Administrators have reviewed the other three models – leaning toward Danielson

• If we do not participate in the year 2 pilot, a stakeholder committee will be formed (we used this process nearly 10 years ago)

• PGAs will no longer be an option in 2012-2013

For more information: http://www.state.nj.us/education/EE4NJ/

“unknowns”

• How performance will be measured for those grade levels/content areas without a state test

• How performance will be measured for certificated staff who do not teach

• What levels of funding will be provided to cover costs

• The “unknown unknowns”!

RTTT3 - Race to the Top 3

• Federal Funding – NJ applied for and received this grant

• NJ DOE allocated funds to school districts – some districts did not accept the funding

• GTPS accepted $35,876 • Why? Because one of the acceptable

uses of the funding was to cover the costs of purchasing and implementing a teacher evaluation model

Questions/Comments can be included on your exit ticket

Updates will be provided as the DOE provides

additional information

Thank you for your time and attention…Best wishes for a positive,

productive staff development day!