State of New Jersey’s Schools
February 29, 2012
1
The need for change
Overall, the NJDOE plays an important role in helping my district achieve its core mission of elevating student achievement and the number of students who graduate college and career ready.
22.5%
2 Source: Spring 2011 NJDOE Superintendent Survey
Today’s agenda
State of NJ Schools NJDOE Priorities
o Performance and Accountability o Academics o Talent o Innovation
2012-13 Budget
3
Enrollment has slightly decreased over time
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
4
2,464 1.35 M
Number of NJ Schools Number of NJ Students, millions
Source: NJDOE
0
20
40
60
80
100
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Enrollment in inter-district choice has increased, but program remains small
5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
3,365 73
Number of Choice Districts Number of Inter-District Choice Students
Source: NJDOE
Increase in Hispanic students, fewer White and African American students
17%
61%
6% 15% 16%
53%
9%
22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
African American
White Asian Hispanic
2001 2011
27%
5% 13%
32%
4%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
FRPL LEP Spec Ed
2003 2010
6
Statewide Enrollment by Race Statewide Enrollment by FRPL, LEP, SpEd
Source: NJDOE
Student Performance
7
Standards on state tests National ranking
4th grade – LAL 3
8th grade - LAL 30
4th grade – Math 12
8th grade – Math 17
Source: NAEP 2011 report
New Jersey has relatively high standards, as measured by NJASK
8
Consistently high performance on NJASK and HSPA
90
66
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
HSPA NJASK
76
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
HSPA NJASK
9
LAL Performance Math Performance
Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011
% proficient and above % proficient and above
On NAEP, NJ outperforms the nation
200
220
240
260
280
300
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
New Jersey Nation
9 11
200
220
240
260
280
300
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
New Jersey Nation
7 11
10
NAEP Reading 4th Performance
NAEP Reading 8th Performance
Source: NAEP 2003 - 2011
Average scaled score Average scaled score
800
900
1000
1100
1200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mea
n Co
mbi
ned
Verb
al a
nd M
ath
Scor
e
Nation New Jersey
NJ matches national averages on SAT scores
1011
11
Combined SAT Scores Over Time
Source: NJDOE SAT data, 2001 - 2011
More students taking AP tests
However, the percentage of AP tests scoring a 3 or higher
has been relatively constant at 72.5%
Year # of tests taken
’05 – ‘06 63,000
‘09 – ‘10 80,000
12 Source: NJDOE AP data, 2005 – 2006, 2009 - 2010
Achievement gaps
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
White Hispanic African American
20 31
22 32
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
White Hispanic African American
27
24 28
33
NJASK racial gaps have remained constant
14
NJASK LAL Proficiency by Race NJASK Math Proficiency by Race
Source: NJDOE Assessment Data Grades 3 - 8, 2005 - 2011
% proficient and above % proficient and above
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged
24 25
NJASK gaps have remained constant for economically disadvantaged students
15
NJASK LAL Proficiency by FRPL eligibility NJASK Math Proficiency by FRPL eligibility
% proficient and above % proficient and above
Source: NJDOE Assessment Data Grades 3 - 8, 2005 - 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged
31 26
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
White Hispanic African American
16 25
12
HSPA racial gaps are decreasing as white student proficiency has remained stable
16
HSPA LAL Proficiency by Race HSPA Math Proficiency by Race
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
White Hispanic African American
29
19 28
39
% proficient and above % proficient and above
Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011
NAEP gaps persist in 8th grade reading
200
220
240
260
280
300
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Not Disadvantaged Disadvantaged
29 28
17
NAEP Reading 8th Grade Performance by FRPL Eligibility
Source: NAEP, 2003 - 2011
Mea
n sc
aled
sco
re
20
40
60
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
White Hispanic African American
20
17 15
18
SAT Participation by Race AP Participation by Race
White students are more likely to take the SAT and AP
0
20
40
60
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
White Hispanic African American
40
32 24
31
18 Source: NJDOE SAT and AP data, 2005 - 2010
Percent of seniors taking SAT Percent taking at least 1 AP
SAT “college readiness” gap has increased over time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % o
f Tes
t-Ta
kers
Sco
ring
155
0 or
Hig
her
White Hispanic African American
35
28 38
30
19 Source: NJDOE SAT data, 2006 - 2011
Percent of Test Takers Meeting College Benchmarks
AP racial gaps persist over time
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Perc
ent o
f Tes
ts S
cori
ng 4
or5
African American Hispanic White
21 15
39 38
20 Source: NJDOE AP data, 2006 - 2010
Percent of Students Scoring 4 or 5 on AP
Significant number of NJ students need college remediation
Bergen Community College (2009-10)
Essex County Community College (2007-08)
Union County College (2009-10)
91% Students tested into remedial math or English
61.2% Full-time, first-year students enrolled in at least one remedial class
89.5% Students tested into remedial math
58.2% Students tested into remedial reading
89.2% Students tested into remedial writing
21
Large within-school achievement gaps persist in top 25% of schools
150
175
200
225
250
275
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
LAL
Scal
ed S
core
Top 25% of Schools-LAL Performance (Excluding SpEd and LEP)
Top 25% In Top 25% Schools Bottom 25% in Top 25% Schools DFG A
45 65
22 Source: NJDOE Assessment data, 2005 - 2011
Top 25% of students in lower-performing schools outperform bottom 25% of students in higher-performing schools
150
175
200
225
250
275
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
LAL
Scal
ed S
core
LAL Performance (Excluding SpEd and LEP)
Top 25% In Top 25% Schools Top 25% In Bottom 25% Schools Bottom 25% in Top 25% Schools Bottom 25% In Bottom 25% Schools
20 24
23 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Scho
ol A
vera
ge P
rofic
ienc
y Ra
te, N
JASK
School FRPL Rate
Selected School FRPL Rate and Proficiency
Selected schools with FRPL rate below 40%
Selected schools with FRPL rate above 60%
Many high-poverty schools outperform low-poverty schools
24 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, selected schools, 2009 - 2011
65% Proficiency
Focus on 3rd grade reading proficiency Number of 3rd grade students in New Jersey
that did not pass NJASK – LAL in 2010-11
Percentage of these students educated in DFG A or B districts
Percentage of these students educated in our five largest urban districts
Percentage of these students educated in schools that had a poverty rate lower than the state school average
25
37,000
42%
16%
43%
Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, Grade 3, 2010-2011
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
Scho
ol P
over
ty R
ate
Number of 3rd Graders Not Reading on Grade Level
3rd grade reading proficiency a statewide issue
26 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, Grade 3, 2010 - 2011
Diversity not a driver of international competitiveness
Source: Hanushek, Eric, Peterson, Paul, Woessmann, Lodger. 2010. “US Math Performance in Global Perspective.” PEPG Report No:10-19.
27
Math performance of white students by U.S. state compared to students in other countries
Education spending in high-need districts exceeds statewide average
District Number of Priority and Focus Schools
Percent of Schools
Total Per-Pupil Spending, 2009-2010
Newark 28 47% $22,992
Camden 23 88% $23,770
Paterson 22 63% $20,229
Trenton 16 89% $21,038
Elizabeth 14 47% $21,952
Jersey City 13 36% $21,824
State 253 11% $17,836
28 Source: NJDOE; Priority and Focus Schools based on three-year average; Per Pupil: 2009 - 2010
Lowest-achieving schools are well resourced
Priority schools State average
Student – teacher ratio
11.9 12.6
Student – administrator ratio
171 268
Avg. faculty years of experience
14.6 13.1
Avg. faculty salary $70,774 $68,757
3rd grade reading proficiency
22% 63%
8th grade reading proficiency
41% 82% 29
Source: NJDOE, 2010 - 2011
Shifting the achievement gap conversation
What is the right question posed by this data?
Are we preparing all students for college
and career?
30
Deeper look at charter schools
31
Charter schools have increased, but remain 2% of total students
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
100
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
32
37,000
Number of Charter Schools Total Charter Enrollment
Source: NJDOE
Charter students are disproportionately African American and Hispanic
33 Source: NJDOE, 2010 - 2011
61%
70%
25%
10%
3% 8%
1% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
African American
Disadvantaged Hispanic White Asian Spec Ed LEP
Demographics of Charter Schools
Urban charter schools outperform their districts
34 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011
In math, a similar gap persists (10 points)
54
45
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
NJASK LAL Proficiency, Excluding Sped and LEP
Urban Charters Urban District
Urban charter school performance varies by district
20 3 6 7 7
0
20
40
60
80
Newark Paterson Jersey City Camden Trenton
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
NJASK LAL Proficiency , Excluding SpEd and LEP
Charter District
# Schools:
35 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2008 - 2011
Charter school performance varies even within districts
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mat
h N
JASK
Pro
ficie
ncy
LAL NJASK Proficiency
Performance of Newark Charter Schools , Excluding SpEd and LEP
District
TEAM
North Star
Robert Treat
36 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2008 - 2011
Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)
37
What are Student Growth Percentiles?
New Jersey has adopted the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) methodology
SGPs illustrate the annual growth of a student relative to a
group of academic peers with a similar achievement history
Status and Growth = Performance New Jersey is changing the key question from, “Who’s
proficient and who’s not?” to, “Are we creating and fostering an educational environment where all students are learning and growing?”
38
Previous understanding of performance: proficiency
39
0
15
30
45
60
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
or a
bove
, NJA
SK M
ath
2010
2010 Math Proficiency for One District’s Schools
ILLUSTRATIVE
Source: NJ District (Illustrative), 2009 - 2010
New understanding of performance: growth
40
Higher achievement, higher growth
Higher achievement, lower growth
Lower achievement, higher growth
Lower achievement, lower growth
ILLUSTRATIVE
NJDOE priorities
41
NJDOE refocusing to support student achievement
Department Reorganization Academics Talent Performance and Accountability Innovation
Changing relationship with schools NCLB flexibility request – new school accountability system Regional achievement centers Move away from compliance Deregulatory effort
42
New Jersey’s NCLB Flexibility Request Opportunity to decouple missing a subgroup target from a
‘lock-step’ consequence. No longer required to make AYP determinations that a school is ‘failing’
based on a single missed subgroup or participation rate.
Opportunity to dedicate NJDOE resources to our lowest performing schools. In 2010-2011, roughly 50% of schools were identified as failing to make
AYP.
As part of the Flexibility Request, NJDOE has identified about 15% of schools to receive supports and interventions.
43
Performance and accountability
44
Performance and accountability priorities
45
New unified accountability system Classification of schools under NCLB Flexibility Request
Building a data-rich environment to support local goal setting and improvement Performance Report Drill-down Reports in NJSMART
New measures of student performance and outcomes Student Growth Percentiles NCLB 4-year, adjust cohort graduation rate
Reduction of reporting redundancies
Data used to classify schools
NJASK Language Arts and Math HSPA Graduation Rate Growth demonstrated on NJASK
46
Definition of Priority and Focus Schools
47
Priority – School-wide Measures Schools in the bottom 5% of schools statewide on assessments and
graduation rates, who are also NOT demonstrating high growth.
SIG schools
Focus – Subgroup Measures Schools with dramatically underperforming subgroups that are not
demonstrating high growth on assessments or graduation rates.
Schools with large within school gaps between the highest achieving subgroup and the two lowest subgroups that are not demonstrating high growth.
Large within school gaps in Focus Schools
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Per
cent
Pro
ficie
nt a
nd A
bove
Focus Schools: Within-School LAL Proficiency Gaps
LAL Proficiency of Lowest Two Subgroups LAL Proficiency of Highest Subgroup LAL Proficiency Schoolwide
43 37
48 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011
Other Schools
Reward Schools Demonstrating high achievement Demonstrating high growth
Not classified Local – and public – goal setting and planning process
49
Data-rich environment
50
New Performance Reports to replace School Report Card
Source: School Performance Report prototype
Data-rich environment
51
Focus on school-level metrics
Source: School Performance Report prototype
Data-rich environment
52
Drill-down reports in NJSMART Graduation Cohort Reports Early Warning Reports Post-Secondary Feedback Reports
Source: NJ SMART
Academics
53
Academics priorities
54
Implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Model Curriculum/Formative Assessments & PD
Instructional Improvement System Model lessons, resource support
Early Literacy (Prek-3) College and Career Readiness Transition to PARCC
Transitioning NJASK to CCSS
Why Model Curriculum?
55
Common Core State Standards • Fewer, clearer, more rigorous • Internationally benchmarked • Aligned to college and career readiness
46 states and DC have adopted the CCSS
• Leverage state and nation-wide expertise • PARCC (23 states & DC) • Effective teachers need effective tools • Continuous improvement (version 1.0 to be followed by 2.0)
Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Version 1.0
WHAT Students need to Learn
HOW We can best Instruct
WHEN Do we know students
have learned
Standard Student Learning
Objectives Instruction
Formative Assessments
Summative/Formative
CCSS
Standard 1
SLO #1
SLO #2
• Model Lessons • Model Tasks • Engaging
Instructional Strategies
• Effective
checks for understanding
• Teacher- designed formative assessments
Unit Assessment SLOs 1-5
CCSS Standard 2
SLO #3
SLO #4
SLO #5
General Bank of Assessment Items 2.0
Student -level learning reports - Professional development - Resource reviews
Model Curriculum Unit
56
Regional Achievement Centers
57
RACs represent the most ambitious and focused effort to date to improve student achievement across the state:
• Change focus from all schools to low-performing schools
• Required alignment of resources to proven turnaround principles
• Coordination of State resources to support RACs
The Department is undergoing a fundamental shift from a system of oversight and monitoring to service delivery and support
Regional Achievement Centers
58
Identify schools struggling the most
Assess needs and develop plans
Provide targeted interventions aligned to proven turnaround principles
Determine advanced interventions if a school does not improve
8 Turnaround Principles
1. Climate & culture
2. Principal leadership
3. Quality of instruction
4. Standards-based curriculum, assessment, intervention system
5. Effective use of data to improve student achievement
6. Effective staffing practices
7. Academically-focused family & community engagement
8. Redesigning school time
Talent
59
60
Recruitment and Preparation
Licensure and Certification
Evaluation Professional Development
Retention and Separation
Talent priorities
Current evaluations are subjective and fail to impact teaching practice
NEW JERSEY
Troubling achievement gaps
50% of college students never graduate
NATIONALLY
Teacher effectiveness is the most important in-school factor for improving student achievement The Widget Effect exposes failure of schools to distinguish among and recognize the effectiveness of their teachers
The Obama administration highlights evaluation reform as a key commitment tied to federal policy and funding opportunities
At least 32 states have recently changed their evaluation systems
Why transform our teacher evaluation systems?
61
2010 – 2011: Governor’s Educator Effectiveness Task Force developed evaluation guidelines
2011 – 2012: DOE implemented EE4NJ teacher evaluation
pilot program with 11 pilot districts and 19 schools currently receiving School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding
2012 – 2013: Capacity building and preparation year for all
Districts including opportunity to participate in a new grant-supported pilot program
2013 – 2014: Full roll-out and implementation of new
teacher evaluation systems
Progress to Date and Upcoming Milestones
62
Lessons Learned from EE4NJ Pilots
Stakeholder engagement
District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (DEPAC)
Evaluator and Teacher Training
Capacity challenges
Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
63
Next steps for teacher evaluation
LEAs
• Use 2012-2013 to prepare for implementation through participation in a new teacher evaluation pilot or completion of defined set of benchmarks
• Continue to garner feedback from your teachers and principals in order to build the culture needed for a robust evaluation system
NJDOE
Propose Regulations to the State Board based upon lessons learned from current pilot
Release two new grant opportunities to pilot teacher and principal evaluation systems
Assist participating Districts in allocating their Race to the Top allocations
Provide more frequent and more precise communication
2013 – 2014: Full roll-out and implementation of new teacher evaluation 64
Budget
65
Overall numbers
Increase of $135 million in K-12 formula aid Most state aid in NJ history
Return to SFRA formula
90% of districts receive an increase in state aid
Fully fund SFRA in 5 years Increase state aid in each subsequent year
66
Funding formula changes – phased in over 5 years
Move to “average daily attendance”
Reduce Adjustment Aid by 50% of spending over adequacy
Return “at-risk” and “LEP” weights to those proposed by Professional Judgment Panels (PJPs)
Convene task force for new measure of “at-risk”
67
Funding increases after weights are adjusted
SFRA Fiscal Year 2009 Per Pupil
Governor Christie’s FY13 Proposal Per Pupil
At-risk student
$16,595 - $17,724 $17,386 - $17,875
LEP student
$16,934 $17,998
Combination At-Risk/LEP student
$18,006 - $19,135 $18,671 - $19,161
68 Source: SFRA Fiscal Year 2009; Governor Christie’s FY13 Proposal
High school example (trend persists for all grade levels):
Not just what you spend…
It’s not only “how much” money is spent but “how well” it is spent.
Changing the way money is spent is by far the most important means of actually changing the behavior of schools and the school systems.
69
70
Question and Answer
State of New Jersey’s SchoolsThe need for changeToday’s agendaEnrollment has slightly decreased over timeEnrollment in inter-district choice has increased, but program remains smallIncrease in Hispanic students, fewer White and African American studentsStudent PerformanceNew Jersey has relatively high standards, as measured by NJASKConsistently high performance on NJASK and HSPAOn NAEP, NJ outperforms the nationNJ matches national averages on SAT scoresMore students taking AP testsAchievement gapsNJASK racial gaps have remained constantNJASK gaps have remained constant for economically disadvantaged students HSPA racial gaps are decreasing as white student proficiency has remained stableNAEP gaps persist in 8th grade readingWhite students are more likely to take the SAT and APSAT “college readiness” gap has increased over timeAP racial gaps persist over timeSignificant number of NJ students need college remediationLarge within-school achievement gaps persist in top 25% of schoolsTop 25% of students in lower-performing schools outperform bottom 25% of students in higher-performing schoolsMany high-poverty schools outperform low-poverty schoolsFocus on 3rd grade reading proficiency3rd grade reading proficiency a statewide issue Diversity not a driver of international competitivenessEducation spending in high-need districts exceeds statewide averageLowest-achieving schools are well resourcedShifting the achievement gap conversationDeeper look at charter schoolsCharter schools have increased, but remain 2% of total studentsCharter students are disproportionately African American and HispanicUrban charter schools outperform their districtsUrban charter school performance varies by districtCharter school performance varies even within districtsStudent Growth Percentiles (SGP)What are Student Growth Percentiles?Previous understanding of performance: proficiencyNew understanding of performance: growthNJDOE prioritiesNJDOE refocusing to support student achievementNew Jersey’s NCLB Flexibility RequestPerformance and accountabilityPerformance and accountability prioritiesData used to classify schoolsDefinition of Priority and Focus SchoolsLarge within school gaps in Focus SchoolsOther SchoolsData-rich environmentData-rich environmentData-rich environmentAcademicsAcademics prioritiesWhy Model Curriculum?Model Curriculum UnitRegional Achievement CentersRegional Achievement CentersTalentTalent prioritiesWhy transform our teacher evaluation systems?Progress to Date and Upcoming Milestones�Lessons Learned from EE4NJ Pilots�Next steps for teacher evaluationBudgetOverall numbersFunding formula changes – phased in over 5 yearsFunding increases after weights are adjustedNot just what you spend…Slide Number 70