Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy
The state should publicly report districts' distribution of teacher talent among schools to identify inequities in schools serving disadvantaged children. This goal was reorganized in 2021.
School-level data about teacher performance: New Jersey publicly reports annual school-level data regarding teacher effectiveness ratings. The state publishes teacher evaluation ratings—from an evaluation system based on instructional effectiveness—by school.
Research-based factors: School report cards provide data on the percentage of days that faculty are in attendance. However, New Jersey does not provide additional school-level data that includes factors such as:
Staff Evaluation Data http://www.state.nj.us/education/data/staff/ School Performance Reports https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/PerformanceReports.aspx
Publish other data that facilitate comparisons across schools.
While New Jersey meets this goal, the state should consider ways to build upon their data systems and add other research-based factors such as: the percentage of first- and second-year teachers employed as teachers of record at a certain date; the percentage of teachers on emergency credentials; and the percentage of effective teachers disaggregated by student subgroup, by school, and by teaching area.
New Jersey recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state also noted that the 2019-2020 School Performance Reports will include educator qualifications for teachers that are not teaching in subject/field certification/licensure. New Jersey will also share and evaluate data with LEAs regarding the progress of LEAs in ensuring that low-income and minority children in Title I, Part A schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, inexperienced, and out-of-field teachers using the Evaluation Information System which is used to deliver the data cards and other evaluation data to districts. This task will be completed in the summer of 2022.
New Jersey also indicated that the data provided will include the following: a. Title I, Part A status of the District and School; b. Rates at which students are taught by Ineffective Teachers; c. Rates at which students are taught by Inexperienced Teachers; d. Rates at which students are taught by Potentially Out-of-Field Teachers; e. All of the data provided on the cards will be disaggregated race as well by the economic status of the student population.
7F: Distributing Teacher Talent Equitably
Distribution data on teachers across schools should show more than just teachers' years of experience and highly qualified status. Transparency is one of the most important tools states have to promote the equitable distribution of teachers within and across higher and lower-need schools and districts. States generally publicly report little more than what is mandated by federal requirements, which highlight years of experience and highly-qualified status. However, while teaching experience matters, the benefits of experience are largely accumulated within the first few years of teaching. School districts that try to equalize experience among all schools are overestimating its impact. There is no reason why a school with many teachers with only three or five years' experience cannot outperform a school with teachers who have an average of more than 10 years' experience.
For this reason, states need to report data that are more informative about a school's teachers. As more states require evaluation systems based primarily on teacher effectiveness, the most important distribution data that a state can make available is school-level data about teacher performance. This is not to say that individual teacher ratings should be reported, but school level data would shine an important light on whether all students have access to effective teachers.
In addition to performance data, states and districts should also track and report school-level teacher absenteeism rates. When a teacher misses ten or more days of school, the decline in student achievement is often proportionate to the differences in achievement seen between students taught by a new teacher compared to those taught by a teacher with two to three years of experience. Further, studies have found that teachers serving low income and minority students have higher absence rates, on average, which may contribute to the achievement gap. In fact, it is well-documented that these averages are not representative of the bulk of teachers, as 16 percent of teachers account for almost one-third of teacher absences.
States can also provide meaningful information by using an index for quantifying important teacher credentials found to correlate with student achievement. A good example of a strong index is the academic capital index developed by the Illinois Education Research Council, incorporating teachers' average SAT or ACT scores, the percentage of teachers failing basic skills licensure test at least once, the percentage of teachers on emergency credentials, average selectivity of teachers' undergraduate colleges, and the percentage of new teachers. These factors are complicated, so the state should install a system that translates them into something more easily understood, such as a color-coded matrix indicating a high or low score for a school.
States need to report data at the level of the individual school. Only by achieving greater stability in the staffing of individual schools can districts achieve the nation's goal of more equitable distribution of teacher quality. A strong reporting system reflecting effectiveness data and the index described above, as well as data on teacher attrition, teacher absenteeism, and teacher credentials, can lend much-needed transparency to those factors that contribute to staffing instability and inequity.
The lack of such data feeds a misconception that all high-poverty schools are similarly unable to retain staff because of their demographics. Yet, staff stability actually varies considerably across schools with similar numbers of poor and/or minority children. Within-district comparisons are crucial in order to control for as many elements specific to a district as possible, such as a collective bargaining agreement (or the district's personnel policies) and the amount of resources.