# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/approvedlist.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
New  Jersey's $38 million Race to the Top III award and successful ESEA waiver  application were based partly on a commitment to improve educator evaluations. The TEACHNJ Act, signed into law in August 2012, mandated  that new evaluation systems based on multiple measures of student learning and  teacher practice be implemented in 2013-14.

# data[].attributes.subject
New  Jersey's $38 million Race to the Top III award and successful ESEA waiver  application were based partly on a commitment to improve educator evaluations. The TEACHNJ Act, signed into law in August 2012, mandated  that new evaluation systems based on multiple measures of student learning and  teacher practice be implemented in 2013-14.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.njea.org/news-and-publications/njea-review/november-2011/comparing-teacher-evaluation-models

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
James Stronge - Teacher Performance Evaluation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this insightful video author and educator James Stronge, a 2012 Hawker Brownlow Education conference presenter, discusses how teacher evaluation should involve highlighting a teacher's strengths while positing areas where they can improve. His books give teachers the tools necessary for performance growth, highlighting how improved teacher performance is reflected in student performance growth.

# data[].attributes.body
Weighting and rating cutoffs were arbitrarily set by a committee of 90 educators and policymakers from NJDOE. Goal is for weighting of both teacher practice and student achievement to be equal over next several year.

# data[].attributes.body
Standards #1-6 are weighted 80% & Standard 7 is 20% of final teacher effectiveness rating.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Increasing student achievement;
2. Assessing teacher effectiveness accurately in order to provide meaningful feedback;
3. Supporting ongoing improvement of educators by ensuring appropriate training and links to professional development opportunities; and,
4. Facilitating school-wide collaborative cultures focused on continuous improvement fostered by openness and sharing.

# data[].attributes.body
1. To what extent has student achievement measurably improved as a result of TEPES?
2. How has teacher practice changed in terms of delivering the curriculum and assessing student progress from feedback received from TEPES?
3. What components of the TEPES model have been most/least successfully implemented by teachers and administrators?
4. What do teachers and administrators perceive as the key factors supporting/impeding successful implementation of TEPES?

# data[].attributes.body
Board of Education
Teachers
Administrators
ScIP/DEAC Committees - forum for teachers, union representatives, and administrators to provide input and feedback on TEPES and on results of this evaluation.
Parents

# data[].attributes.body
After reviewing five of the key teacher evaluation models approved by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE), the district selected the Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System (TEPES) developed by Dr. James Stronge owing to its clarity and ease of use.  Evaluators assess the effectiveness of teachers against seven performance  standards based on specific indicators using multiple data sources as evidence.  A comprehensive diagnostic profile of teacher performance is reported through a four-point rating scale aligned to clearly defined appraisal rubrics.

Depending upon the teacher’s years of employment and tenure status, administrators perform at least one formal long classroom observation with pre- and post- meetings and two informal short walk-through observations.  Non-tenured teachers undergo a mid-year evaluation to provide feedback on current progress prior to final classroom observations.  Every teacher maintains professional development and supporting documentation logs aligned to the performance standards.  Additional data is collected from an end-of-course student survey, the summative results of which are self-reported by the teacher.  Student academic growth is calculated from comparative analyses of simple or tiered data from pre- and post- teacher-made skills and course content assessments.

# data[].attributes.body
Structured Surveys

Focus Groups

Individual & Small-group Interviews

Teacher Observations

Archival Data:

Systems 3000 Employee Database (Teacher identifiers: tenure status, years of employment, and department affiliation)

GENESIS Student Management Systems (Lesson plans, Final student course grades, and Standards coverage)

OASYS Teacher Evaluation Database (Recorded Observations, SGO Results, Self-Evaluations. Final Summative Evaluations, and Professional Development Log)

# data[].attributes.body
Few systematic and comprehensive research studies have been conducted examining the variability of teacher effect using alternative models or data from the same teachers over time or across different course offerings. Individual teacher effectiveness scores can vary significantly across statistical models. Current value-added analyses depend significantly upon untestable statistical assumptions.

Among the considerations not adequately addressed in evaluation approaches are the function of schools, the impact of multiple teachers, the aptitude and motivation of students, and the role of families in producing measurable student learning gains.  Models fail to address the quality of instruction and the impact on student learning.  Scant information is available explaining why student test scores differ from observation-based teacher effectiveness measures.

The purpose of this study is to ascertain the predictive validity of the Stronge Teacher Effectives Evaluation System (TEPES) along with its influence on student academic growth and
its impact on curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.