Montclair BoE Meeting: Approval of New Teacher Evaluation System

Superintendent Penny MacCormack and Board President Robin Kulwin
Superintendent Penny MacCormack and Board President Robin Kulwin

The Montclair Board of Education’s January 28 meeting drew a large crowd despite the nighttime freezing rain, as members of the Montclair Education Association (MEA) gathered to hear, among other things, a presentation from the District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) on their findings for the proper set of standards with which to evaluate teachers and principals.  The adoption of such a system is mandated by the Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey (TEACHNJ) Act.  Committee leader Dr. Gail Clarke, principal of Nishuane School, reported to the board that the proposal teacher evaluation rubric designed by Boston educator Kim Marshall was the logical choice out of five possible programs the committee had studied.

The “Marshall Plan” – which School Superintendent Penny MacCormack and Board President Robin Kulwin chose to refer to officially as the Marshall Evaluation Rubric to obviously avoid confusion with the 1947 program that aided postwar Western Europe—consists of several results based on its use in other districts that DEAC believed would improve faculty performance.  Among its findings were that the Marshall rubric allows teachers and principals to have a shared understanding of what constitutes quality teaching, it encourages principals to get into classrooms on a more frequent basis, and it enables them to see how children regularly perform in class every day.

Mrs. Gail Clarke, principle of Nishuane School
Mrs. Gail Clarke, principle of Nishuane School

“It just really spoke to good teaching practice and collegial feedback,” Dr. Clarke told the board.  “It did not have an evaluative tone to it; it had a growth tone to it.  So it was very appealing to me as a principal, and then of course not having six hours of paperwork to provide equal feedback to teachers would allow that feedback to be more timely . . . and more about instruction.”

DEAC member Katherine Martinez, the interim assistant superintendent for instruction and assessment, agreed and noted that the Marshall model made the classrooms more accessible for evaluation.  “By being the classrooms regularly and often,” she said, “we get an opportunity to see what we need to make instruction better.  Do we need to look back at our curriculum? Do we have any gaps?  Can we take this to the next level?”  She said that the evaluations would provide helpful information to the central office.

Board member Norman Rosenblum said that the evaluation plan was something the school district could look forward to. But he asked if the Marshall approach took different standardized tests into account.  Dr. Clarke told the board that the plan does not address that directly, but the DEAC’s work would inform their decisions with regard to what other multiple measures they would use in a final observation of each teacher.  Board member Tanya Coke also asked how many evaluations were recommended.  Dr. Clarke explained that four evaluations per year for tenured teachers and five evaluations a year for non-tenured teachers were recommended by code, but she recommended a minimum of ten evaluations for all teachers each year.

“It’s very exciting to me,” board member Leslie Larson said of the idea of getting principals and teachers to work together for improved faculty performance.  “It seems like such a collaborative process . . . trying to create a culture of everyone trying to improve.”

The board, at the recommendation of Mrs. Kulwin, who is also a DEAC member , approved the plan by motion.  Angelica Allen-McMillan and Shelly Lombard were absent.

Dr. MacCormack also took the time to stress the need to integrate academic standards for reading and writing for both students who continue to go to college and those who directly enter the workforce. She noted that students may have been able to get by on a watered-down vocational track and been able to get jobs that could support a family comfortably, but those jobs are gone.

“Research now shows us that you actually need the same set of skills of knowledge to be ready for careers as you do for college,” Dr. MacCormack said.  She cited blue-collar jobs such as an electrician or a plumber, and how training manuals for such jobs show a need for a college-level ability to develop a defensible point of view from written text and writing clear, concise narratives. She urged parents to offer suggestions for making the standards more rigorous if they feel that extra rigor is needed.

Resident George Bennett, a physician, did indeed suggest in public comment that standards were in need of strengthening. He cited raw data showing how Montclair High School students were being outperformed in Jersey City Science High School and Elizabeth High School despite numerous rubrics meant to improve teaching in the Montclair school system.  “When 58 percent of the town’s budget goes towards education, outcome matters,” he said.  “We could discuss process ad infintum, ad nauseum.  But when I listened to your presentation, it failed to take into consideration that your neighbors are outperforming you . . ..  Science High School has always outranked Montclair, despite what everyone wants to say.”

Dr. MacCormack acknowledged that there were areas that Montclair needs to grow in, based on the data she herself has presented before, and she was looking toward moving forward with plans and strategies to improve student performance.  Rosenblum said it was unfair to compare Science High School to Montclair, as the Jersey City school was much more selective, but he did admit that there was work to be done in closing the achievement gap.

The school board also passed resolutions approving bills and claims for the months of December 2012 and January 2013 later in the evening.

See the presentation of the Marshall Evaluation Rubric here.

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.


  1. I agree that a joint and collegial evaluation style is preferred. And I would assume, since that is the method everyone finds most about feedback and not punitive, that the same style would be used for evaluating administrative positions.

    It’s so important for those evaluating teachers – even fellow teachers – to actually get into the classes to see and experience what happens on an on-going basis. I have been going into my child’s classroom once a week to help with groups, and it has opened my eyes to the challenges and accomplishments that happen. As a (former) high school teacher, it has given me an abundance of respect for what elementary school teachers handle each hour. I am EXHAUSTED after that one hour each week.

    I feel that some of those ten “recommended” visits (since five, at the most, are required) should be simply assisting in the classroom. The evaluations will be more whole and rounded and helpful to improvement.

  2. I know people don’t go to the kids section, but I wanted to post the early over/under line on the 2013-14 school budget increase: 5.1%.
    BTW, that accounts for the $6.7MM carry-forward (not surplus) from the previous 2 years.

  3. “the same style would be used for evaluating administrative positions. ”

    This was a point made during the presentation. The “Marshall Plan” has a corresponding component for administrators; some of the other mechanisms evaluated by the committee did not.


  4. “it was unfair to compare Science High School to Montclair, as the Jersey City school was much more selective”

    I’d like to know more about this, and I hope that some journalism can follow. Are the cited schools more selective?

    The speaker at the meeting also compared Montclair to Glen Ridge. I know that, economically, there’s a significant divide between our student populations. I recall someone posting here a while ago a comparison between Glen Ridge and the more affluent students in Montclair which showed little difference, suggesting – perhaps to little surprise – that the issue our district faces is largely an economic one. This puts our schools in a position of needing to address difficulties far more serious in Montclair than Glen Ridge.

    “admit that there was work to be done in closing the achievement gap”

    This phrasing is cumbersome. I was at the presentation of the results of district testing a couple of meetings back, and nobody argues that there is no gap or that there’s no work to be done to address it. This is not any sort of new “admission” from the BOE.


Comments are closed.