Dr. Rachel Goldberg
Assembly Education Committee
December 14, 2023

Good morning, members of the Assembly Education Committee. My name is Dr. Rachel
Goldberg and I serve as Superintendent of the Springfield Public Schools in Union County.  I am
here in my capacity as a member of the executive committee of the Garden State Coalition of
Schools.
Before I begin, I would like to offer my gratitude to Chairperson Lampitt for serving as the
primary sponsor of the courageous bill to revise the evaluation process in our schools and the
members of this committee who are listening to our feedback today.
I would also like to recognize the work of the teachers that joined us for their powerful testimony
this morning. There was no question that many administrators agree with many of the points
they made in their powerful testimony.
I am sitting before you this morning to provide testimony regarding Assembly Bill 5877, a
significant revision to landmark 2012 TeachNJ legislation.  It is hard to believe that it has been
12 years since I was a part of the initial groups of districts piloting significant evaluation reforms,
and regularly traveled to Trenton to take part in a thoughtful dialogue to inform the shift in
evaluation.
Over the last 12 years, I have been honored to serve in leadership positions in three districts,
two large urban and one smaller suburban, and have seen the power of the initial conversations
that changed feedback on teaching and learning and the use of student data to impact student
achievement. 
Across the state, this legislation changed the way we talk about the art and science of teaching
and leading.  We shifted from traditional feedback–using words like “satisfactory or
unsatisfactory” on basic administrative tasks–to thoughtful feedback related to what constitutes
evidence of students learning.
There is no question that since this legislation we have seen a significant shift from the basic
observations and evaluations of the past and changed leadership practice as it relates to
teaching and learning. We now have a critical opportunity to review the requirements of this
legislation through the perspective of the schools.
Unfortunately, this legislation as written fails to accomplish what so many hoped to see.
Today, I am asking that the committee members request revisions to this language prior
to moving it for full consideration.
I would like to start by noting where I, and many of my peers agree.  The summative evaluation
process is flawed and needs to be addressed.  The use of the Student Growth Objectives, or
SGOs, and Student Growth Percentiles, or SGPs need to be removed, as they are not meeting
their goals. 
In the proposed substantive repeal and update to the law, the language as proposed will be
problematic for the Department of Education, district and school administrators, and teachers.

Page 2 of 5

Let me explain:
First, this bill is only addressing a relatively small portion of the full Chapter 26
legislation.  To approve the proposed language and pass this revision is a piecemeal
approach to reducing the burden of the current law. 
For example, Section 3 of the current law includes a variety of definitions that would need to be
revised in order for the proposed language to be effective.  One example is the definition of
“Multiple objective measures of student learning” which includes language around standardized
assessments that would be in conflict with the language proposed.”
The proposed language for section 17 directs that an evaluation rubric is required to “be partially
based on multiple objective measures of student learning that use student growth from one
year’s measure to the next year’s measure”.
Furthermore, it goes on to require districts to “determine the methods for measuring student
growth” and includes “ a provision that multiple measures of practice and student learning be
used in conjunction with professional standards of practice … Standardized assessments shall
be used as a measure of student progress but shall not be the predominant factor in the overall
evaluation of a teacher”.  This original section 17 language (page 4 line 23) stands in conflict
with the new language (page 5 lines 30 and 31).
Redefining “student growth data” in one section, without addressing the need for definitional
changes in other areas of the legislation, will lead to confusion in any guidance provided, and
will only further exacerbate deep issues with this process. It is essential that all definitions are
consistent, and provide whatever limits are intended. 
In other instances, the legislation proposed only identifies “tenured teachers, principals,
assistant principals, and vice principals”, but any shift to these requirements should include
other certificated personnel that are included in the entirety of the legislation such as school
counselors, school athletic trainers, nurses, library media specialists, reading specialists, etc. 
Second, the relationship between classroom observations and summative evaluations
must be clarified.
First, I would like to note that how I read and interpreted this legislation differs from the
interpretation of other individuals you may hear today. For example, does the shift in
summative evaluations also mean a shift in classroom observations and feedback? The
presentation by Ms. Cornavaca indicates that is not the intention of the bill.
Is the shift merely a sorely needed reduction in state reporting and accountability measures?
The true goal of the legislation as written is unclear, and will make it very difficult for an already
stretched and struggling Department of Education to provide clear regulations for action in the
next school year.
 
I would argue that based on my personal experience reviewing hundreds of evaluations and
summative assessments over the last 11 years, the summative evaluation is altogether
unnecessary, and in its different forms over the last ten years, has primarily served as the point
where a leader reviews and averages where an individual’s observation “scores” would place
them (i.e. highly effective, effective) for the purpose of submitting a “score” to the NJDOE.

Page 3 of 5

Instead of removing this administrative burden, the proposed legislation merely shifts it.  If
summative evaluations are only done every other year or every three years, what is the point in
doing them at all? I do not disagree with keeping some form of a “summative” discussion for
those educators who are determined to be in the “partially proficient” or “ineffective” category,
and I appreciate that there remains room in this proposal to address poor performance.
If the summative evaluations are a driver for the development of the annual Professional Growth
Plans, or SGPs, when and how will those be effectively developed in partnership with
certificated personnel and their leaders?
Research regarding instructional feedback has found the most purposeful conversations are
functional feedback related directly to observed practice (instructional, leadership, or
otherwise)(Scheeler et al., 2004; Thurlings et al., 2013).  This legislation does not clearly
address the guidance provided regarding classroom observations, which are significantly
different from the summative evaluation, the requirements of such could (and should) be
addressed in a revision of this legislation. 
Are two classroom observations and post-conferences sufficient for supporting professional
conversations about teacher practice and using those conversations to develop plans for future
professional learning? Our teachers testified today that those opportunities for feedback are not
being argued. We must ask then, what is the benefit of a summative evaluation?
Indicators, such as those referenced earlier related to a teacher’s participation in the school
teaching and learning community can be discussed in the context of the individual observation
process.
If the purpose of the summative evaluation is to ensure the appropriate process for removing
ineffective educators, we should look at what constitutes an effective process.  There are
currently very few certificated personnel who have lost their tenure rights due to charges of
inefficiency. 
Last night, using the NJDOE TeachNJ Arbitrator Decisions available online, I did a little data
dive.  Over the last 12 years, there have been 273 cases.  The highest in one year was 54
(2015). Over the last three years there have been 31 cases.  Of those, 3 involved a non-
instructional employee.  9 resulted in tenure charges being sustained, only 1 of which was
related to inefficiency charges.  17 resulted in tenure charges being dismissed. Some involved
the same individual.
If I had more time, I would dive into the rest of the statistics, but I think this gives us a good
picture.  In fact, most of the individuals had significant issues in their employment, but
instructional capacity was not the core issue. 
The truth is tenure is a protection, but it is protecting people against far more than instructional
capacity.  It is protecting folks with significant attendance issues, concerns about mental fitness
for duty, and individuals who have had some otherwise serious charges related to their
employment.  Before you simply legislate a shift or deferral of paperwork, perhaps we could
take a hard look at what the arbitrators are finding, and ask how we address the deep issues
underlying the decisions.

Page 4 of 5

There is no question that this is also closely related to the strains of the teacher shortage, and
we need to think carefully about how any changes can lead to more support, not more
confusion.  
Third, and similarly to the concern about the summative evaluation shifts, why would we
only use student learning data in summative evaluations in the year(s) when a
summative evaluation is developed?
Please know I am a proud data wonk, and love looking at and discussing student and educator
data in all forms.  I have had the opportunity to speak about my love of data in many contexts,
and at the beginning of the legislation served as a vocal advocate for what the SGPs promised.
Unfortunately, the promised expansion and sufficient timing of SGPs never occurred, leading to
continued inequity in teacher summative scores.  While the repeal of section 25 clearly removes
those from the summative evaluation, we must be thoughtful about where else this language
appears.
I would also like to add that Student Growth Objectives, or SGOs, have outlasted their promise.
Let’s be honest, 12 years ago, school districts across the state had significantly different ways of
thinking about student data.  The use of SGOs helped frame conversations about student
learning and made our conversations about assessment stronger.  Today, the conversations
about student data are most valuable when they occur throughout the school year, based on
ongoing formative data.  Research is also clear that strong school leaders support an inquiry-
based approach to professional learning as it relates to student data (Cousins et al., 2006;
Jimerson & McGhee, 2013).  For example, instead of merely looking at who passed or failed,
we now think about growth, recognizing and valuing that growth is the most critical indicator, not
whether a student met an arbitrary cutoff for standardized assessments.
Using this data for accountability purposes has diminished its value, and today SGOs are
merely an administrative burden that we stress about completing so that we can meet the
reporting requirements of QSAC.
Finally, as the NJEA noted, reducing administrative burdens and paperwork play an
important role in the retention of our teachers. However, this legislation does little to
support retention of early educators, those in the first four years of their employment are still
required to submit to the summative evaluation process, and the administrative burdens that
such a process requires.
To summarize, there is no question that the TEACHNJ Act needs to be updated.  We need
to reduce the administrative burdens imposed by this legislation and make space for thoughtful
and professional conversations that are more about student learning and less about meeting an
accountability requirement. We need to honor the incredible work of educators and leaders that
make New Jersey among the best school systems in the country.
Before we worry about whether the burdensome processes are weeding out the
ineffective, let’s think about how they are disenfranchising the most dedicated and
hardworking of our staff.
If the only language in this lame duck session that is changed is the removal of SGOs and
SGPs, this will be a universally welcomed shift. We ask that the other language receive a more

Page 5 of 5

thoughtful and collaborative revision. To quote Assemblyman Umbra, bureaucracy is a problem
that we need to address.
I hope this feedback moves us toward a stronger resolution of these challenges.
Please do not approve this bill as written, but please make revision to this law a priority.
On behalf of Gardens State Coalition of Schools, we are grateful for the opportunity to share
feedback and for your consideration. 

References:
Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., & Clark, S. (2006). Data use leads to data valuing: Evaluative inquiry
for school decision making. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(2), 155-176.
Jimerson, J. B., & McGhee, M. W. (2013). Leading inquiry in schools: Examining mental models
of data-informed practice. Current Issues in Education, 16(1).
Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, M. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to
teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396–407.
Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A
learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1-15.