PROMOTION BASED ON MERIT - NOT STANDARDIZED TEST ALONE

i believe the test erases doubt on how an individual is selected. although unfair to those who have "earned the job". i think the biggest change should be is eliminating the provisional appointment. everyone should be hired off a list and not be subject to be bumped out of a job.

On the surface this seems like a good idea. We had this in the past and favoritism played a major role instead of merit in who received a promotion. The testing system was put into place to stop such practice. I'm not sure this will work because people do have their bias ideals. How would these types of practices be stopped in a merit based system?

Since the tests for most titles exist, upon interview, agencies should be able to test candidates via a secure website. As long as a candidate passes the test, agencies should have the flexibility to document why they want to hire a particular person as opposed to other candidates who may have already tested higher. The waiting for tests and working provisionally is counterproductive when people are displaced with less appropriate staff.

Merit based system is ok if testing is used to validate eligibility. Education in the appropriate field is essential! I've been tested and ranked 1st many times, but never interviewed. The promotional system is a maze since you get varying and even conflicting guidance or interpretation from immediate mangers, HR and CSC on how to move up, even when you have the education, the merit and the rank! Mandatory rotational mentoring of new hires by managers might help promote equity and fairness.

Initially, promotional examinations are not "standardized" tests, rather, they are developed for each title based on a job analysis of the position at issue and test the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform in the title. Additionally, your proposal would require an amendment to the NJ Constitution as Art. VII, Sec. 1 requires that promotions be based on merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination, which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive.

Merit? No thanks. too many factor would be at play there.

Thank you for your response. We need to be careful with including stipulations such as "ability to train others". Some things can be used to overextend a purpose, like forcing an employee to do more in a particular area so as to eliminate instead of proving merit. This is something that could help if used with good intent. My thought is it would need policy backing to protect interests especially for the elder, women, minorities, green card holders and the others that I missed. Thank you

There is currently merit factored into promotions. I'd advise you to speak with your HR or CSC contact for further details, specifically, "how are state promotional exams weighted". It's not entirely just the test results

Only standardized tests offer the greatest amount of fairness in promotion. All other elements are very hard to prove the employee has these qualities.

I agree with this idea. When someone is not a good test taker they could lose the position they work in efficiently. Then someone that is not qualified is put into the position and has to be trained. This lowers the work morale. I've witnessed quite a few employees leave the Division for this reason.

Great idea! In some departments within the state you have 5-6 employees doing the job of what it would take 2-3 efficient, qualified, motivated individuals.

If a person really knows their job and does it well but does not score well on a standardized test (that has nothing to do with they job they do), they are in jeopardy of losing their job (I've seen it happen a number of times). It's never made sense to me and we have lost some really hardworking people for people who don't do anything (but were able to score high on a test).

In the Christie administration, we tried to do something like this at OIT (DOT tried also). It was called "job banding". The CWA union, of which I am a proud member, fought this program tooth-and-nail all the way to the NJ Supreme Court and got it shot down. I will be the first to admit...my team had a hand in developing banding. It was not perfect, but it was a step in the right direction. With some tweaks (and union buy-in rather than confrontation), this could and should be revisited.

I support this idea. Data has shown that standardized testing is not indicative of intelligence level, many are simply not good test takers. Colleges across the nation are eliminating the SAT/ACT score as a basis for admission, the state should weigh this as well. I know many who are excellent employees, smart, do their job well but just fall apart when taking a test.

AGREE! you should not promote based on a one day standardized test. This does not make a person promotable alone. There are so many other factors that need to be considered. Production of work, Team player, Education, ability to train/lead. I also believe the DCPP Civil Service test does not provide study classes or information geared to the job. Most of the time it is about a calendar and scheduling.

Yes, favoritism is one of the main impediments which I addressed in the implementation plan. However, for there to be fairness to all seeking promotion, there has to be some type of move to merit based system.

While true that there are those that promote based on favoritism, the current methodology of just using a test, isn't working either. There are those that score high on the standardized test, but can't complete there job requirements and have never or minimally trained at their lower title.