| Testimony | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Testimony to the NJ Assembly Education Committee on the NJ Educator Evaluation Reform Task Force Report...'
Testimony to the NJ Assembly Education Committee
on the NJ Educator Evaluation Reform Task Force Report
Good [morning/afternoon], Chairwoman Lampitt and distinguished members of the Assembly
Education Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the recent
report from the New Jersey Educator Evaluation Review Task Force, which charged with
examining and suggesting improvements to our educator evaluation system under the TEACHNJ
Act.
My name is David Aderhold, the proud Superintendent of the West Windsor-Plainsboro
Regional School District and the Chairperson of the Educator Evaluation Review Task Force. I
am joined here today by my fellow Task Force members, Karen Bingert, Executive Director
from the New Jersey Principal and Supervisors Association and Elisabeth Yucis, Associate
Director in Professional Development and Instruction from the New Jersey Education
Association. Along with eight other colleagues, we were appointed by Governor Murphy in
2024 to review the current educator evaluation practices in New Jersey and to recommend
appropriate changes and updates. We are here to highlight critical aspects of the Task Force’s
recommendations, which aim to recalibrate our educator evaluation system to better support
educators and enhance student outcomes.
Background and Charge
The Task Force was established under S2082/A3413 with the directive to examine New Jersey’s
educator evaluation practices, particularly those stemming from the TEACHNJ Act and
AchieveNJ framework. Thank you to Assemblywoman Lampitt and Assemblywoman
Matsikoudis for sponsoring the original legislation last December (A-5877) that created the Task
Force as a forum to fully explore the complex legal and practical issues of our educator
evaluation system. However, the bill also put a hold on SGO’s for this school year so the Task
Force could do its work while maintaining our core system of evaluations for educators. The
Task Force worked at a break neck pace from mid-July until our submission on September 30th
to examine TEACHNJ (statutory) and the corresponding regulatory and guidance documents. It
is also important to note that this Task Force was also derived out of recommendations from a
prior Task Force on School Staff Shortages (Executive Order 309). While many steps have been
taken to address staffing shortages, they continue to be a major challenge despite many
legislative efforts (primarily initiated by Assemblywoman Lampitt).
As you know, TEACHNJ Act was signed into law in 2012 with the goal of raising student
achievement by improving instruction through the adoption of an educator evaluation system.
Like many, I entered the Task Force with an eye toward statutory change as a means of shifting
the evaluator framework. I was surprised to discover that after a decade of implementation,
TEACHNJ has provided a strong statutory framework for educator evaluation. While minor
changes could further enhance educator evaluation, the Task Force focused on the subsequent
regulatory and guidance documents that contributed to several pressing challenges that impact
educators' effectiveness and students' learning experiences. Our current evaluation system,
outlined in regulations is known as AchieveNJ. Many aspects of AchieveNJ is overly
burdensome and time-consuming, while other aspects are poorly utilized and provide tremendous
opportunities for differentiation in educator evaluations.
There is a disconnect between the current educator evaluations system and the impact that those
evaluations have on driving educators to improve professionally. Administrators are unable to
dedicate adequate time to the critical work of observing, evaluating, coaching, providing
feedback, and mentoring teachers, particularly novice teachers who might require more
guidance. The goal of professional growth should be a commitment to engage in meaningful
dialogue about improving teaching and learning. Teachers and administrators must work together
in our shared commitment to continuous improvement in service to our students, instead of being
forced into a system that prioritizes artificial scores and distrusted accountability measures,
causing educators to become defensive and resentful.
Overall Goal
• Shift from a compliance-centered evaluation system to one that fosters professional
growth, supports student learning, and empowers educators to provide the best possible
education for New Jersey's students.
o Regulatory Changes to AchieveNJ
o Issuance of NJDOE Guidance for Educator
• The success of these recommendations’ hinge on the continued collaboration between
educators, their respective associations, and the NJDOE in commitment to improving
education in New Jersey. Recommendation for an Educator-Led Working Group.
Central Concerns
• Misalignment: Disconnect between the original intent of TEACHNJ and its current
implementation under AchieveNJ.
• Dissatisfaction: Widespread discontent with the evaluation process, particularly Student
Growth Objectives (SGOs).
• Administrative Burden: Excessive paperwork and compliance focus hinder teacher
support and student learning.
• Negative Impacts: Strained relationships, disincentivized innovation, and limited focus
on professional growth.
Key Challenges
The Task Force’s report underscores three major challenges in the current evaluation system:
1. Over-Reliance on Compliance-Based Measures: The use of Student Growth Objectives
(SGOs), initially designed to ensure objective measures of student learning, has become a
compliance-driven process. Educators find that SGOs add significant administrative
burden without clearly benefiting instructional practices or student achievement. The
narrow focus on compliance, rather than pedagogical growth, has led many educators to
view SGOs as a distraction from meaningful educational improvement.
2. Administrative Burden and Diminished Teaching Quality: The extensive paperwork
and time investment required to meet SGO and evaluation criteria have diverted valuable
time from core teaching responsibilities. Teachers and administrators alike report that this
has a detrimental impact on their ability to focus on individualized student support,
collaborative teaching practices, and innovative instructional methods.
3. Unintended Consequences on Educator Morale and Retention: Evaluation practices,
in their current form, create stress and foster an environment that may discourage high
standards. This evaluation system has led many teachers to set modest growth targets to
ensure favorable evaluations rather than challenge themselves and their students.
Administrators feel pressured to rate teachers in ways that reflect the overall building
performance, rather than focusing on meaningful professional growth for individual
educators.
Conclusion
The recommendations from the Task Force represent a significant shift toward a more
meaningful, growth-oriented evaluation system. By refocusing evaluations on professional
development and reducing administrative burdens, we can ensure that educators have the time,
resources, and support needed to succeed in the classroom.
We urge you to review our report and to take action on our recommendations. We believe that by
working together, we can create an educator evaluation system that is fair, effective, and
supportive of all New Jersey educators. We urge the committee to support these
recommendations and prioritize regulatory reforms that place professional growth and student
achievement at the forefront of educator evaluation in New Jersey.
END OF TESTIMONY
ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR DISCUSSION
Core Recommendations
• Redefine "Multiple Objective Measures of Student Learning": Integrate diverse
assessment data into Professional Development Plans (PDPs) to capture a broader picture
of student learning and integrate/align processes.
• Expand Flexibility:
o Offer a wider range of Commissioner-approved activities for tenured teachers,
aligning them with professional learning standards.
o Streamline the process for districts to submit alternative evaluation practices for
approval.
o Provide clearer guidance on local flexibility within evaluation rubrics.
o Educate and expand opportunities/flexibilities under waivers and equivalences.
• Ongoing Collaboration:
o Establish an educator-led working group to support implementation and provide
feedback on the recommendations.
o Enhance guidance, technical assistance, and resources for educators.
o Reimagine educator evaluation by leveraging lesser-known aspects of existing
regulations and best practices.
Specific Recommendations
• Eliminate SGOs: Replace with a more holistic approach integrated into PDPs.
• Expand Eligibility for Alternative Observations: Allow both effective and highly
effective teachers to utilize Commissioner-approved activities.
• Revisit Rating Categories: Consider reducing from four to three categories to streamline
the process and focus on growth.
• Implement Recommendations Expeditiously: Issue updated guidance or enact a
statutory pause on SGOs until new regulations are in place.
• Pilot New Protocols: Allow a select group of districts to test the new evaluation
approach under NJDOE guidance.
Task Force Recommendations
The Task Force has made several recommendations to address these challenges and refocus the
evaluation system on professional development and meaningful instructional improvement:
1. Streamline Evaluation Goals and Focus on Best Practices: The Task Force
recommends consolidating SGOs with Professional Development Plans (PDPs), reducing
annual goal-setting requirements from four goals to two integrated goals that prioritize
professional growth and student learning. This streamlined process would lessen
administrative load and allow educators to concentrate on actionable teaching strategies
that support individual student needs.
2. Introduce Greater Flexibility and Alternative Evaluation Measures: To better
support effective and highly effective educators, the Task Force advocates for alternative,
Commissioner-approved evaluation practices. Expanding options, such as reflective
practice protocols and aligning with state support frameworks like Multi-Tiered Systems
of Support (MTSS), would allow teachers to demonstrate professional growth in
meaningful ways while reducing redundant observations.
3. Ongoing Support and Partnership: Finally, the Task Force recommends establishing a
working group to support the implementation of these changes and encourage continued
collaboration between educators and the NJDOE. This partnership aims to maintain an
adaptive evaluation system responsive to the evolving educational landscape and
grounded in the feedback of experienced practitioners.
Recommendations of the Educator Evaluation Review Task Force
Recommendation Number Recommendation Type
1
Incorporate the statutory definition of multiple objective
measures of student learning into future NJDOE
guidance and include the definition into the regulatory
updates in N.J.A.C. 6A:10
Regulatory
(R)
2
Reduce the burden on teachers and administrators by
integrating and streamlining the requirements of
Professional Development Plans and Student Growth
Objectives
Guidance
(G) or
Regulatory
(R)
3
Intentionally align these reimagined PDPs with language
in N.J.A.C. 6A:8-3.1 (Standards and Assessment)
Guidance
(G)
4
Create a new name for the aforementioned structure,
hence redefining a process that would meet all existing
regulatory requirements of SGOs and PDPs
Guidance
(G) or
Regulatory
(R)
5
Plan for a future re-examination of the median student
growth percentile (mSGP) component of evaluations
Statutory
(S)
6
Approve and publish an expanded bank of
Commissioner-approved practices and broaden eligibility
to both Effective and Highly Effective Educators
Guidance
(G) and
Regulatory
(R)
7
Align "Commissioner-approved activities" with the
Standards for Professional Learning to further integrate
professional learning and educator evaluation
Guidance
(G)
8
Develop a process for districts to submit alternative
practices for approval as outlined under N.J.A.C. 6A:5-
1.3 which outlines a procedure for submission of an
equivalency or waiver
Guidance
(G)
9
Issue guidance on local flexibility within existing
evaluation rubrics
Guidance
(G)
10
Convene an implementation working group during the
2024-2025 school year
Guidance
(G)
11
Collaborate with stakeholders towards providing
enhanced guidance, technical assistance, clarification,
banks of strategies, drafts of waivers, and examples of
best practices and methods identifying innovative
approaches to already established statutes and
regulations
Guidance
(G)
12
Reimagine Educator Evaluation in New Jersey utilizing
some of the lesser-known components of existing
regulations which support and build upon emerging and
existing best practices
Guidance
(G)
13 Amend N.J.A.C. 6A:10, Educator Effectiveness, in a
targeted manner to address specific areas of clarification
Regulatory
(R)
14
Revisit the requirement of four rating categories and
consider using three instead (Effective, Partially
Effective, Ineffective)
Statutory
(S) and
Regulatory
(R)
15
Should the targeted regulatory changes not be feasible
prior to the start of the 25-26 school year, the Task Force
recommends a statutory pause be placed upon SGOs
until a new regulatory framework premised on the
recommendations of the Task Force can be implemented
Statutory
