MHPC is moving to a new and improved blog platform. Please click here to go to the blog section of our www.GreatSchoolsforME.org website. Thanks!
4:10 PM. Never mind. The panel has three hour - THREE HOURS - left to meet, yet wants "as much information as possible" on at least five other models.
This next meeting - next Wednesday afternoon - will be one for the record books.
3:58 PM: Two minutes left. Where are we? Unbelievably, there seems like there is a hint of a shadow of the slimmest possibility that the panel might be coalescing around some kind of modified version of Danielson. There seems to be some optimism here, perhaps for the first time.
Is it possible that this group might pull this off?
3:48 PM: So the decision making process will ultimately be: (1.) Try to get consensus. (2.) If someone has a problem with the "consensus" model, they are to explain why and propose alternatives/solutions. (3.) If consensus can't be reached, majority rules. There was then some discussion about what decisions were to be made using this decision-making process, and which decisions were to be made using the Robert's Rules of Order model for making decisions. Interestingly, there was no debate about which decision-making process should be used to decide which decision-making process is to be used to decide which questions that need deciding.
I think I just had a stroke.
3:33 PM: LESS than a half-hour to go and only NOW - after hours and hours of meeting - the panel is talking about what "consensus" will look like. If it is majority rule, the MEA's Galgay says, the MEA will back out now and sink the whole process. Could this thing be any more of a disaster?
3:30 PM: A half hour to go, and the Department has taken the interesting step of seeming to abandon pursuing a specific model in favor of some agreeing on some broad protocols or standards for what a specific model might have. Is the idea now to simply adopt some standards instead of a specific model? Is this what the A.G.said they needed to do? I don't think so...
3:15 PM: A slow motion train wreck. Less than an hour to go, and STILL the panel is debating whether they actually have to do what the governor and the A.G. have said they must do. 30 minutes have gone by with NO discussion of actual models. The panel is actually losing ground at this point...
3:09 PM: MEA's Gray is now pushing to work over the A.G a bit more. He is suggesting having the feds put some pressure on the A.G. to get her to sign off.
3:07 PM: Silence. A long, uncomfortable silence...This is surreal...
3:05 PM: MEA's Mark Gray: Let's not make the situation worse by rushing into something. Let's take some time to get it right, even if it means NOT applying for the Race to the Top.
3:03 PM: Fire is being focused on the one person who is not here to defend herself - A.G. Mills. She is getting it from all sides in here...
3:00 PM: An hour left and the blame game begins. The MEA, who amended LD 1799 in such a way that this stakeholder group was created in the first place, is now saying that the fault lies with the A.G., who has ruled that LD 1799 is a legal barrier to using student performance in teacher evaluations, is at fault, as is the governor, who has given the panel until the end of next week, to adopt a model that will satisfy the A.G.
The Department is getting raked over the coals as well for not bringing more models forward.
Now the Department is saying that it is only following orders and it doesn't like this any more than anyone else.
It is a sign of how things are going that excuses are already being made for why the stakeholder group failed to get the job done.
2:53 PM: The panel is doing a "check-in" to get a sense of where everyone is, and what is being expressed is a lot of frustration about the short time frame and the lack of time. Almost 3 o'clock at this point and the panel doesn't seem to be any closer to a model than they were last week. I can feel Maine's chances for a Race to the Top grant slipping away...
2:25 PM: The union is having none of it. They feel as though a day has been wasted already on the TAP model, which is very costly and hard to implement, and if the stakeholder group fails to find a model that will work, the MEA will be blamed for it.
2:20 PM: A new proposal from the Department: Let's take the Danielson model and add the student data piece and make that one choice, and also let TAP, if a district wants to do it, be the other model.
2:10 PM: The TAP people are headed back the airport, and now the group's deliberations begin...
1:20 PM: Back from lunch, and time for some Q&A with TAP's Jason Culbertson. I had a minute during lunch to ask him the question that I had been waiting for the panel to ask, which was how the actual student achievement data is used in the teacher evaluation process. His answer was that it can be used however local districts want to use it. TAP's value-added component, which is used by TAP to establish the performance-based pay bonuses, could also be used for an evaluative purpose as well. In other words, if a district wanted to use the so-called "teacher achievement score" as part of evaluation process as well as using it for the performance bonuses, there is nothing in the TAP model that prohibits this.
The key, then, is for this panel, if it decides to approve TAP, to make clear that the student-performance based "teacher achievement score" CAN be used for evaluation purposes. It doesn't seem as though that is TAP's default use of the measure (TAP uses it for the pay element), but if this model is going to get the A.G.'s approval, it MUST permit the use of student performance data "for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluations."
Will the panel figure this out?
11:59 AM: Closing in on noon, and still the following questions have not come from the stakeholder group - How is actual student achievement used to inform teacher evaluations? Not pay, evaluations. Where in the evaluation rubric is there an entry for actual student performance and how is it used to calculate the teacher's effectiveness rating?
11:15 AM: Lots of talk about the TAP rubric now (and why it is so much better than the Danielson framework), and why it has been so successfully correlated to student outcomes. This is the strength of the model, he is saying, and that is a good thing, because as I understand it, this model does not use student achievement or student growth as part of the evaluation process. Student performance informs training and compensation, but evaluation is done using the rubric, not by looking at student performance data.
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding...
11:05 AM: As if on cue, Culbertson is now on to TAP's evaluation system. The teacher evaluation system is comprised of multiple observations my the schools leadership team, which includes master and mentor teachers as well as school administrators, who have to do 8 days worth of training on how to use the TAP evaluation rubric, and must be "re-certified" to use the rubric each year.
10:59 AM: Culbertson is probably 15-20 minutes into his pitch, (along with a TAP teacher with a great Chicago accent) and there looks to be a lot of email checking going on among the stakeholder group. His presentation is very good, but TAP is so extensive - it has a professional development element, a performance-pay element, and a career-ladder element, in addition to the teacher evaluation element - that he seems to be losing some of the group. He maybe hurting his case by making TAP seem like much more far-reaching model than it is. More on the evaluation piece, please!
10:30 AM: On Friday, I had a phone discussion with Jason Culbertson from TAP, who is now presenting the TAP model to the stakeholder group. My conclusion, from taking with Jason, was that TAP DOES NOT use student achievement data in teacher evaluations. He has come right out at the start of this meeting and said that it does. Each teacher, he says, is given a "student achievement" score. How it is used, he says, is up to the local district.
Hmmmm.....
9:55 AM: Quite a scene here. The MEA, which had LD 1799 amended in such a way that the stakeholder was created and given veto power over teacher evaluation models that make use of student achievement, is arguing with with AG's office about whether the stakeholder group has the very veto power that the MEA gave it. To paraphrase the MEA's Mark Gray, "Can the panel just agree that we will agree on a model at some point?" "That is too wishy-washy for me," says the A.G....They MUST produce a model "that allows that linkage" between student achievement and teacher and principal evaluations. She could not be more clear.
9:46 AM: A.G. Mills has made it clear that "at least one protocol" must be approved by the panel - and soon. Unless this group acts, she says, LD 1799 "could be construed to be a barrier" to the use of student achievement for teacher and principal evaluations. Such a barrier would make Maine ineligible for the RTT grant.
9:41 AM: A.G. Mills has joined the meeting. "Something has to happen and has to happen soon" for her to certify that Maine is eligible for an RTT grant.
9:38 AM: The LD 1799 stakeholder group's daylong session is underway, and the Department is starting off this meeting as they should have begun the last meeting, with some clarifications of the stakeholder group's purpose and mission. The Department has handed out a fact sheet that contains the actual language of the applicable state and federal laws.
Debate has begun already on whether or not the group actually has to approve a model in order for the Attorney General to sign off on the state's RTT application. The A.G. says yes, and that would seem to settle the matter, but there is a suspicious lack of commitment on the part of the Department so far this morning - they seem to be suggesting that this remains an open question.
What is going on here?
Last meeting, they were gung-ho to start looking at models, but today there seems to be some hesitancy to lead here...
This could be a very long day...
This next meeting - next Wednesday afternoon - will be one for the record books.
3:58 PM: Two minutes left. Where are we? Unbelievably, there seems like there is a hint of a shadow of the slimmest possibility that the panel might be coalescing around some kind of modified version of Danielson. There seems to be some optimism here, perhaps for the first time.
Is it possible that this group might pull this off?
3:48 PM: So the decision making process will ultimately be: (1.) Try to get consensus. (2.) If someone has a problem with the "consensus" model, they are to explain why and propose alternatives/solutions. (3.) If consensus can't be reached, majority rules. There was then some discussion about what decisions were to be made using this decision-making process, and which decisions were to be made using the Robert's Rules of Order model for making decisions. Interestingly, there was no debate about which decision-making process should be used to decide which decision-making process is to be used to decide which questions that need deciding.
I think I just had a stroke.
3:33 PM: LESS than a half-hour to go and only NOW - after hours and hours of meeting - the panel is talking about what "consensus" will look like. If it is majority rule, the MEA's Galgay says, the MEA will back out now and sink the whole process. Could this thing be any more of a disaster?
3:30 PM: A half hour to go, and the Department has taken the interesting step of seeming to abandon pursuing a specific model in favor of some agreeing on some broad protocols or standards for what a specific model might have. Is the idea now to simply adopt some standards instead of a specific model? Is this what the A.G.said they needed to do? I don't think so...
3:15 PM: A slow motion train wreck. Less than an hour to go, and STILL the panel is debating whether they actually have to do what the governor and the A.G. have said they must do. 30 minutes have gone by with NO discussion of actual models. The panel is actually losing ground at this point...
3:09 PM: MEA's Gray is now pushing to work over the A.G a bit more. He is suggesting having the feds put some pressure on the A.G. to get her to sign off.
3:07 PM: Silence. A long, uncomfortable silence...This is surreal...
3:05 PM: MEA's Mark Gray: Let's not make the situation worse by rushing into something. Let's take some time to get it right, even if it means NOT applying for the Race to the Top.
3:03 PM: Fire is being focused on the one person who is not here to defend herself - A.G. Mills. She is getting it from all sides in here...
3:00 PM: An hour left and the blame game begins. The MEA, who amended LD 1799 in such a way that this stakeholder group was created in the first place, is now saying that the fault lies with the A.G., who has ruled that LD 1799 is a legal barrier to using student performance in teacher evaluations, is at fault, as is the governor, who has given the panel until the end of next week, to adopt a model that will satisfy the A.G.
The Department is getting raked over the coals as well for not bringing more models forward.
Now the Department is saying that it is only following orders and it doesn't like this any more than anyone else.
It is a sign of how things are going that excuses are already being made for why the stakeholder group failed to get the job done.
2:53 PM: The panel is doing a "check-in" to get a sense of where everyone is, and what is being expressed is a lot of frustration about the short time frame and the lack of time. Almost 3 o'clock at this point and the panel doesn't seem to be any closer to a model than they were last week. I can feel Maine's chances for a Race to the Top grant slipping away...
2:25 PM: The union is having none of it. They feel as though a day has been wasted already on the TAP model, which is very costly and hard to implement, and if the stakeholder group fails to find a model that will work, the MEA will be blamed for it.
2:20 PM: A new proposal from the Department: Let's take the Danielson model and add the student data piece and make that one choice, and also let TAP, if a district wants to do it, be the other model.
2:10 PM: The TAP people are headed back the airport, and now the group's deliberations begin...
1:20 PM: Back from lunch, and time for some Q&A with TAP's Jason Culbertson. I had a minute during lunch to ask him the question that I had been waiting for the panel to ask, which was how the actual student achievement data is used in the teacher evaluation process. His answer was that it can be used however local districts want to use it. TAP's value-added component, which is used by TAP to establish the performance-based pay bonuses, could also be used for an evaluative purpose as well. In other words, if a district wanted to use the so-called "teacher achievement score" as part of evaluation process as well as using it for the performance bonuses, there is nothing in the TAP model that prohibits this.
The key, then, is for this panel, if it decides to approve TAP, to make clear that the student-performance based "teacher achievement score" CAN be used for evaluation purposes. It doesn't seem as though that is TAP's default use of the measure (TAP uses it for the pay element), but if this model is going to get the A.G.'s approval, it MUST permit the use of student performance data "for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluations."
Will the panel figure this out?
11:59 AM: Closing in on noon, and still the following questions have not come from the stakeholder group - How is actual student achievement used to inform teacher evaluations? Not pay, evaluations. Where in the evaluation rubric is there an entry for actual student performance and how is it used to calculate the teacher's effectiveness rating?
11:15 AM: Lots of talk about the TAP rubric now (and why it is so much better than the Danielson framework), and why it has been so successfully correlated to student outcomes. This is the strength of the model, he is saying, and that is a good thing, because as I understand it, this model does not use student achievement or student growth as part of the evaluation process. Student performance informs training and compensation, but evaluation is done using the rubric, not by looking at student performance data.
I may be wrong, but that is my understanding...
11:05 AM: As if on cue, Culbertson is now on to TAP's evaluation system. The teacher evaluation system is comprised of multiple observations my the schools leadership team, which includes master and mentor teachers as well as school administrators, who have to do 8 days worth of training on how to use the TAP evaluation rubric, and must be "re-certified" to use the rubric each year.
10:59 AM: Culbertson is probably 15-20 minutes into his pitch, (along with a TAP teacher with a great Chicago accent) and there looks to be a lot of email checking going on among the stakeholder group. His presentation is very good, but TAP is so extensive - it has a professional development element, a performance-pay element, and a career-ladder element, in addition to the teacher evaluation element - that he seems to be losing some of the group. He maybe hurting his case by making TAP seem like much more far-reaching model than it is. More on the evaluation piece, please!
10:30 AM: On Friday, I had a phone discussion with Jason Culbertson from TAP, who is now presenting the TAP model to the stakeholder group. My conclusion, from taking with Jason, was that TAP DOES NOT use student achievement data in teacher evaluations. He has come right out at the start of this meeting and said that it does. Each teacher, he says, is given a "student achievement" score. How it is used, he says, is up to the local district.
Hmmmm.....
9:55 AM: Quite a scene here. The MEA, which had LD 1799 amended in such a way that the stakeholder was created and given veto power over teacher evaluation models that make use of student achievement, is arguing with with AG's office about whether the stakeholder group has the very veto power that the MEA gave it. To paraphrase the MEA's Mark Gray, "Can the panel just agree that we will agree on a model at some point?" "That is too wishy-washy for me," says the A.G....They MUST produce a model "that allows that linkage" between student achievement and teacher and principal evaluations. She could not be more clear.
9:46 AM: A.G. Mills has made it clear that "at least one protocol" must be approved by the panel - and soon. Unless this group acts, she says, LD 1799 "could be construed to be a barrier" to the use of student achievement for teacher and principal evaluations. Such a barrier would make Maine ineligible for the RTT grant.
9:41 AM: A.G. Mills has joined the meeting. "Something has to happen and has to happen soon" for her to certify that Maine is eligible for an RTT grant.
9:38 AM: The LD 1799 stakeholder group's daylong session is underway, and the Department is starting off this meeting as they should have begun the last meeting, with some clarifications of the stakeholder group's purpose and mission. The Department has handed out a fact sheet that contains the actual language of the applicable state and federal laws.
Debate has begun already on whether or not the group actually has to approve a model in order for the Attorney General to sign off on the state's RTT application. The A.G. says yes, and that would seem to settle the matter, but there is a suspicious lack of commitment on the part of the Department so far this morning - they seem to be suggesting that this remains an open question.
What is going on here?
Last meeting, they were gung-ho to start looking at models, but today there seems to be some hesitancy to lead here...
This could be a very long day...
In an article in today's Portland Press Herald, the Otten campaign makes another attempt to downplay their liberal use of my work in answer to a question on education policy for Augusta Insider. As was first reported by Matt Gagnon at pinetreepolitics.com, the Otten campaign's response to a question on the federal Race to the Top program was lifted, pretty much word for word, from testimony I gave to the legislature's education committee last March.
In a statement yesterday, the Otten campaign suggested that they intended to cite me as the source of their response, but simply neglected to do so. Additionally, they seemed to suggest that we at MHPC were somehow okay with their actions, since we had, in their words, "pointed" them to the testimony in the first place. I offered my own response to the Otten campaign's statement in a blog post yesterday.
In today's Press Herald piece, the Otten campaign offers up yet another spin on the story, suggesting that only "two paragraphs" of my work went without citation.
Really?
Thinking this might be a less than accurate representation of what happened, I took some time this morning to compare my testimony to the Otten campaign's answer on Augusta Insider. I then went back through my testimony and highlighted the sections (bolded and italicized in the images below) that the Otten campaign lifted - word for word - from my work.
Two paragraph's worth? You decide. Remember, the text in these images that is bolded and italicized was used - word for word - by the Otten campaign without any citation.
Page 1 of my testimony:
Page 2 of my testimony:
Page 3 of my testimony:
Otten's response is 419 words long. Of that, only the last eight words - "We can, and must, compete for these funds" - originated with someone other than me.
And we are supposed to believe that this was an "inadvertent oversight"?
Please.
In a statement yesterday, the Otten campaign suggested that they intended to cite me as the source of their response, but simply neglected to do so. Additionally, they seemed to suggest that we at MHPC were somehow okay with their actions, since we had, in their words, "pointed" them to the testimony in the first place. I offered my own response to the Otten campaign's statement in a blog post yesterday.
In today's Press Herald piece, the Otten campaign offers up yet another spin on the story, suggesting that only "two paragraphs" of my work went without citation.
Really?
Thinking this might be a less than accurate representation of what happened, I took some time this morning to compare my testimony to the Otten campaign's answer on Augusta Insider. I then went back through my testimony and highlighted the sections (bolded and italicized in the images below) that the Otten campaign lifted - word for word - from my work.
Two paragraph's worth? You decide. Remember, the text in these images that is bolded and italicized was used - word for word - by the Otten campaign without any citation.
Page 1 of my testimony:
Page 2 of my testimony:
Page 3 of my testimony:
Otten's response is 419 words long. Of that, only the last eight words - "We can, and must, compete for these funds" - originated with someone other than me.
And we are supposed to believe that this was an "inadvertent oversight"?
Please.
In my March 4th testimony before the legislature's Education Committee, I laid out why I thought the state should adopt bold reform measures in response to the federal Race to the Top initiative. We were not doing enough, I said, to compete with states like Michigan and Massachusetts. We needed to do far more than pass an "innovative schools" bill and agree to adopt common standards. We needed to be bold and innovative and really take some big steps forward on education policy.
One of the state's gubernatorial candidates seems to agree.
In fact, as Matt Gagnon of pinetreepolitics.com, among others, has noted, the Les Otten campaign's response to an Augusta Insider question about Race to the Top bears an awfully strong resemblance to my earlier testimony.
As Gagnon observed, The start of the Otten response reads: "Under the Race to the Top program, $4.3 billion is being made available to states to help them fund promising education reforms. The catch is that this is a competitive grant program. States across the nation have responded by passing comprehensive reform legislation that moves their states forward in a dramatic fashion."
The second paragraph of my testimony, by contrast, reads: "Under the Race to the Top program, $4.3 billion is being made available to states to help them fund promising education reforms. The catch is that this is a competitive grant program, and states across the nation have responded by passing comprehensive reform legislation that moves their states forward in a dramatic fashion."
Hmmm....
The Otten piece goes on to cite my findings with regard to Michigan and Massachusetts. On Massachusetts, for instance, I told legislators that "I also have with me the Race to the Top legislation passed by our neighbors in Massachusetts. This 41-page bill expands the number of charter schools in Massachusetts, and gives the state broad powers to intervene in chronically failing schools, including empowering district superintendents to unilaterally amend elements of the collective bargaining agreements in such schools in order to make the staffing changes needed to turn them around."
Otten's piece reads:
"MASSACHUSETTS:
• Expanded the number of charter schools in Massachusetts.
• Gave the state broad powers to intervene in chronically failing schools, including empowering district superintendents to unilaterally amend elements of the collective bargaining agreements in such schools in order to make the staffing changes needed to turn them around."
The Otten campaign, in fact, spent quite a bit of time turning my carefully crafted paragraphs into their bulleted lists:
I wrote: "What is Maine doing to create "alternate routes to teacher certification" as suggested in the Race to the Top application? Nothing. What are we doing to see to it that "highly effective teachers and principals" are given "opportunities for additional compensation"? Nothing. What are we doing to "ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers"? Nothing. What are we doing to "improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs"? Nothing."
Otten's version reads:
"Maine is doing nothing to create alternate routes to teacher certification.
Maine is doing nothing to see to it that highly effective teachers and principals are given opportunities for additional compensation.
Maine is doing nothing to improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs."
(Note that the bit about "equitable distribution of effective teachers" was left out of Otten's version.)
Where I wrote this: "The Race to the Top grant, though, gives this committee the opportunity to makes its mark on Maine's schools. You have the opportunity to rework our data and information systems. You have the opportunity to re-imagine how we attract, train, certify, support and compensate our teachers and school administrators. You have the opportunity to take aggressive actions to intervene in chronically underperforming schools, to give our school and community leaders the flexibility they need to make their schools better, and to provide students and families with more educational options, including charter schools."
The Otten campaign wrote:
"The Race to the Top grant gives Maine the opportunity to:
And it is all so blatant, that's the amazing thing. I don't think any of the students I had, who were 14 years old, by the way, would ever have dared to hand in something so patently fraudulent.
But how has the Otten campaign responded to the mini-furor this has created? Did they take a stand for integrity and the importance of intellectual property by identifying and firing the author of Otten's piece?
No, they sent out the following statement instead:
One of the state's gubernatorial candidates seems to agree.
In fact, as Matt Gagnon of pinetreepolitics.com, among others, has noted, the Les Otten campaign's response to an Augusta Insider question about Race to the Top bears an awfully strong resemblance to my earlier testimony.
As Gagnon observed, The start of the Otten response reads: "Under the Race to the Top program, $4.3 billion is being made available to states to help them fund promising education reforms. The catch is that this is a competitive grant program. States across the nation have responded by passing comprehensive reform legislation that moves their states forward in a dramatic fashion."
The second paragraph of my testimony, by contrast, reads: "Under the Race to the Top program, $4.3 billion is being made available to states to help them fund promising education reforms. The catch is that this is a competitive grant program, and states across the nation have responded by passing comprehensive reform legislation that moves their states forward in a dramatic fashion."
Hmmm....
The Otten piece goes on to cite my findings with regard to Michigan and Massachusetts. On Massachusetts, for instance, I told legislators that "I also have with me the Race to the Top legislation passed by our neighbors in Massachusetts. This 41-page bill expands the number of charter schools in Massachusetts, and gives the state broad powers to intervene in chronically failing schools, including empowering district superintendents to unilaterally amend elements of the collective bargaining agreements in such schools in order to make the staffing changes needed to turn them around."
Otten's piece reads:
"MASSACHUSETTS:
• Expanded the number of charter schools in Massachusetts.
• Gave the state broad powers to intervene in chronically failing schools, including empowering district superintendents to unilaterally amend elements of the collective bargaining agreements in such schools in order to make the staffing changes needed to turn them around."
The Otten campaign, in fact, spent quite a bit of time turning my carefully crafted paragraphs into their bulleted lists:
I wrote: "What is Maine doing to create "alternate routes to teacher certification" as suggested in the Race to the Top application? Nothing. What are we doing to see to it that "highly effective teachers and principals" are given "opportunities for additional compensation"? Nothing. What are we doing to "ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers"? Nothing. What are we doing to "improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs"? Nothing."
Otten's version reads:
"Maine is doing nothing to create alternate routes to teacher certification.
Maine is doing nothing to see to it that highly effective teachers and principals are given opportunities for additional compensation.
Maine is doing nothing to improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs."
(Note that the bit about "equitable distribution of effective teachers" was left out of Otten's version.)
Where I wrote this: "The Race to the Top grant, though, gives this committee the opportunity to makes its mark on Maine's schools. You have the opportunity to rework our data and information systems. You have the opportunity to re-imagine how we attract, train, certify, support and compensate our teachers and school administrators. You have the opportunity to take aggressive actions to intervene in chronically underperforming schools, to give our school and community leaders the flexibility they need to make their schools better, and to provide students and families with more educational options, including charter schools."
The Otten campaign wrote:
"The Race to the Top grant gives Maine the opportunity to:
• Rework our data and information systems.Folks, I taught middle and high school for ten years before joining MHPC, and I have seen my fair share of plagiarism, but this takes the cake. Nowhere in Otten's piece am I cited as the author, and nowhere is it even suggested that the text was lifted from some other source. Certain pieces of my text were used, others were not. My references to the committee were carefully extracted from the text, and my paragraphs were carefully rewritten as lists. Nowhere is there a citation; nowhere is there even a quotation mark to suggest the use of someone else's words.
• Re-imagine how we attract, train, certify, support and compensate our teachers and school administrators.
• Take aggressive actions to intervene in chronically underperforming schools.
• Give our school and community leaders the flexibility they need to make their schools better.
• To provide students and families with more educational options, including charter schools."
And it is all so blatant, that's the amazing thing. I don't think any of the students I had, who were 14 years old, by the way, would ever have dared to hand in something so patently fraudulent.
But how has the Otten campaign responded to the mini-furor this has created? Did they take a stand for integrity and the importance of intellectual property by identifying and firing the author of Otten's piece?
No, they sent out the following statement instead:
In one of our responses to the Augusta Insider's recent questions regarding education, specifically the Race To The Top program, part of the answer came from public testimony from the Maine Heritage Policy Center on LD 1801. We should have attributed this quote directly to Steve Bowen of the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
The correct citation should be listed as coming from testimony regarding L.D.'s 1799, 1800 and 1801, The Maine Heritage Policy Center http://www.mainepolicy.org/resources/media/237_1507417858.pdfLes and members of the Otten campaign staff previously met with the Maine Heritage Policy Center and Steve Bowen, who pointed us toward this public testimony. We have spoken to the Maine Heritage Policy Center executive director Tarren Bragdon who appreciates the fact that we have gone back and attributed that quote to their organization. We apologize for the inadvertent oversight as the final draft of our response was being prepared. This is an error of omission not an error of commission.
We will continue to seek out the best minds in the state such as the Maine Heritage Policy Center on the issues that face us.
One or two things for the record in response:
First of all, "part of an answer?" "that quote?" Really? Is there any part of Otten's piece that came from anyone other than me?
Second, the idea that they intended to cite my work but neglected, mistakenly, to actually do it is laughable. When you as an author intend to cite the work of another, you quote the cited work exactly as it appears. You don't deconstruct paragraphs and rework them into bullet lists, and you don't rewrite sentences your own way, then slap quotes around them. In fact, if you intend to quote another's work, you actually use quotation marks.
Had the Otten piece simply been comprised of big sections of unedited text from my work, they could plausibly argue that they cut and pasted it into a new document with the intent of later adding quotation marks and citations. But what they did was rewrite and reorganize whole sections of it. You don't accidentally turn a paragraph into a bullet list, take out the bullets with which you disagree, then accidentally forget to cite the author of the original paragraph from which the bullet list was crafted.
Are they joking with this?
Third, a couple of us from MHPC did indeed meet with the Otten campaign in Bethel on March 23rd. We have met with most of the gubernatorial candidates at one time or another, and not just the Republicans. It is also likely that we did give them some of our reports, and we may very well have given them a copy of the legislative testimony from which they borrowed so brazenly. We have provided materials to a number of gubernatorial candidates, and are more than happy to provide them - any of them - with any information or materials that we might have. We are a research and educational organization and not a day goes by that we don't send someone - a taxpayer, a college student, a legislative candidate, a school board member - a report or a paper that we've authored. This is what we do for a living.
What we did not do was give the Otten campaign some kind of green light to steal our work and pass it off as their own, which is what is suggested in the campaign's response. We spend a lot of time and money "pointing" people toward our work, and we don't do it so that they can then rewrite it and pass it off as their own thinking.
This is no small matter for us. Our donors and supporters trust that the work we do is intended to advance our mission of developing and promoting limited-government, free-market public policy solutions that benefit the people of Maine. We do not intend for our work to be used in a way that implies we endorse a specific political candidate, nor do we expect candidates to slyly suggest in their statements that we are somehow working behind the scenes to advance their campaigns. That appears to me to be what the Otten campaign is implying and it is both offensive to me and to the organization and potentially damaging to our credibility.
The Otten campaign has taken steps to apologize to me and to MHPC, but not for stealing our work.In their mind, it seems, this was simply an unfortunate accident, not a blatant attempt to pass off my work as the work of Les Otten.
I, for one, am not buying it.
As I noted in some earlier reporting on the machinations of the LD 1799 stakeholder group, that newly-minted panel is under the gun to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state's Attorney General that "the State does not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation." If it can't demonstrate this to A.G. Mills, she will not sign off on Maine's Race to the Top application, and Maine will thereby be ineligible to compete for an RTT grant.
Unfortunately, there is a legal and statutory barrier, LD 1799 (now Public Law, Chapter 646), which, as enacted, prohibits districts from using student achievement data in teacher evaluations, unless said evaluation systems are first approved by the stakeholder group created by the bill.
The stakeholder group met earlier this week, and spent some time investigating the evaluation model favored by the state Department of Education, which is the Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP. TAP is a highly-regarded and comprehensive teacher evaluation system that integrates teacher evaluations, targeted teacher training, a "career ladder" professional advancement system, and a performance-based compensation component.
One thing it does not do, though, is, as LD 1799 puts it, "include student assessments as part of teacher evaluations."
The stakeholder group will learn more about this when representatives from TAP come to Monday's stakeholder group meeting, but in a conversation this morning with a member of the TAP staff, I learned that while actual student performance is used as part of the TAP program's performance-based pay component and is used to inform the program's teacher training and professional development system, it is not used as a part of the teacher evaluation system.
Instead, teachers are evaluated under TAP much as they are under the evaluation systems used across Maine and the nation today. Under TAP, teachers are observed multiple times a year by multiple trained evaluators and are rated against TAP's "Teaching Skills, Knowledge and Responsibilities Performance Standards," which TAP describes as "research-based standards based on twenty-six indicators and operationalized against a five-point scale rubric." These standards, I am told, are based on many of the same teaching standards used in teacher evaluations today, including the Danielson framework, which is widely used in Maine already.
TAP's evaluation program is almost certainly far more thorough than the evaluation systems used in most schools today, and TAP has research demonstrating that teachers who score highly on its rubric tend to be highly effective in terms of student outcomes. But TAP's teacher evaluation system DOES NOT use student achievement as a evaluative component, and would therefore be allowed under LD 1799 even without the approval of the stakeholder group. There is nothing in state law today - even with the passage of LD 1799 - that would prohibit a school system from adopting TAP right now. (Since it would make no use of state assessment data, it would have been legal to use here in Maine prior to the passage of LD 1799 as well.)
This is good news for Maine's schools, of course, as TAP has been shown to be highly successful where it has been implemented.
It is bad news - very bad news - for the stakeholder group's effort to satisfy A.G. Mills that no barriers exist "at the State level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation." TAP does not use "student achievement or student growth" "for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation," so its approval by the stakeholder group would be meaningless. Even if districts were permitted by the stakeholder group to use TAP (which they could do now anyway), they would STILL be prohibited from using student data in teacher evaluation, something TAP doesn't do. A legal and statutory barrier to using student achievement data in this way (LD 1799) would thereby STILL EXIST.
SO, I hope the good folks at the Department of Education don't have any weekend plans. TAP is a great program - one Maine's school districts would do well to adopt - but it is not a model that uses student achievement growth for the purpose of teacher evaluation (Danielson isn't either, which is why the Department dropped it as a model to bring to the stakeholder group.) The Department will have to come up with yet another model, and quickly. May 14, the date by which a model is to be reported out, is only two weeks away, and if we don't have a model approved by then, you can forget the Race to the Top.
Unfortunately, there is a legal and statutory barrier, LD 1799 (now Public Law, Chapter 646), which, as enacted, prohibits districts from using student achievement data in teacher evaluations, unless said evaluation systems are first approved by the stakeholder group created by the bill.
The stakeholder group met earlier this week, and spent some time investigating the evaluation model favored by the state Department of Education, which is the Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP. TAP is a highly-regarded and comprehensive teacher evaluation system that integrates teacher evaluations, targeted teacher training, a "career ladder" professional advancement system, and a performance-based compensation component.
One thing it does not do, though, is, as LD 1799 puts it, "include student assessments as part of teacher evaluations."
The stakeholder group will learn more about this when representatives from TAP come to Monday's stakeholder group meeting, but in a conversation this morning with a member of the TAP staff, I learned that while actual student performance is used as part of the TAP program's performance-based pay component and is used to inform the program's teacher training and professional development system, it is not used as a part of the teacher evaluation system.
Instead, teachers are evaluated under TAP much as they are under the evaluation systems used across Maine and the nation today. Under TAP, teachers are observed multiple times a year by multiple trained evaluators and are rated against TAP's "Teaching Skills, Knowledge and Responsibilities Performance Standards," which TAP describes as "research-based standards based on twenty-six indicators and operationalized against a five-point scale rubric." These standards, I am told, are based on many of the same teaching standards used in teacher evaluations today, including the Danielson framework, which is widely used in Maine already.
TAP's evaluation program is almost certainly far more thorough than the evaluation systems used in most schools today, and TAP has research demonstrating that teachers who score highly on its rubric tend to be highly effective in terms of student outcomes. But TAP's teacher evaluation system DOES NOT use student achievement as a evaluative component, and would therefore be allowed under LD 1799 even without the approval of the stakeholder group. There is nothing in state law today - even with the passage of LD 1799 - that would prohibit a school system from adopting TAP right now. (Since it would make no use of state assessment data, it would have been legal to use here in Maine prior to the passage of LD 1799 as well.)
This is good news for Maine's schools, of course, as TAP has been shown to be highly successful where it has been implemented.
It is bad news - very bad news - for the stakeholder group's effort to satisfy A.G. Mills that no barriers exist "at the State level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation." TAP does not use "student achievement or student growth" "for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation," so its approval by the stakeholder group would be meaningless. Even if districts were permitted by the stakeholder group to use TAP (which they could do now anyway), they would STILL be prohibited from using student data in teacher evaluation, something TAP doesn't do. A legal and statutory barrier to using student achievement data in this way (LD 1799) would thereby STILL EXIST.
SO, I hope the good folks at the Department of Education don't have any weekend plans. TAP is a great program - one Maine's school districts would do well to adopt - but it is not a model that uses student achievement growth for the purpose of teacher evaluation (Danielson isn't either, which is why the Department dropped it as a model to bring to the stakeholder group.) The Department will have to come up with yet another model, and quickly. May 14, the date by which a model is to be reported out, is only two weeks away, and if we don't have a model approved by then, you can forget the Race to the Top.
After some time to reflect, a few thoughts on yesterday's meeting:
Considering the madness of the entire enterprise - taking two weeks to develop a model for performance-based teacher and principal evaluations that can be used in every Maine school district - the parties involved acquitted themselves relatively well.
Considering the madness of the entire enterprise - taking two weeks to develop a model for performance-based teacher and principal evaluations that can be used in every Maine school district - the parties involved acquitted themselves relatively well.
- The Department set a productive tone for the meeting and chaired it well, but in retrospect, their rush to begin looking at models was a mistake. The panel simply didn't understand, even by the end of the meeting, what exactly it was tasked with doing. The panel's obligations under state and federal law wasn't made as clear as it needed to be, and even the process by which the panel was to operate was never firmly established. By what means the panel would "approve" a model - its primary task and only reason for being - was never discussed in any depth, for instance. As a result of all this, the panel will need to back up and do some of this work at its next meeting.
- The Department made a second mistake by establishing in an earlier communication that it intended to have the panel look at two evaluation models - TAP and Danielson - but then dropped Danielson altogether because it does not make use of student performance data. This rubbed some members of the panel the wrong way, because it made it appear as though the Department was doing precisely what it was doing, which was trying to get the panel to agree on adopting TAP.
- Some sympathy, therefore, must be extended to the Department's teacher induction guy, Dan Conley, who did his best to present the TAP model to a panel that (a.) was simply not ready to begin looking at specific models, and (b.) seemed to resent being presented with only one model to look at. A better move might have been for the Department to have Conley walk through a handful of models in order to give the panel some background on performance-based evaluation systems in general, and save the primer on TAP until the next meeting.
- As for the panel itself, some high marks have to go to the MEA, whose amendment to LD 1799 created the panel in the first place. The union's president, Chris Galgay and its executive director, Mark Gray, did an admirable job outlining in refreshingly clear terms what the union's concerns are with this approach and with the process by which it is being implemented. They acknowledged that student outcomes should inform teacher and principal evaluations in some way, but cautioned the panel that Maine's history is replete with school reform approaches that were developed with high hopes in some conference room in Augusta, only to collapse at the implementation stage. They were right about this and they generally represented the union very effectively.
- MSSA's Sandy MacArthur should be commended as well for attempting, unsuccessfully, as it turned out, to get the panel to establish some ground rules about how it would operate and how it was to decide on which models, if any, were to be approved. MacArthur gamely brought up the topic at least three or four times, but the Department, in a rush to get on to the models, skirted these fundamental issues. MacArthur will doubtless be ready with the same questions next meeting.
- The panel's rising star is SAD 3's Carrie Thurston, who was relentless in her efforts to squeeze more information out of the Department. She was right to ask for more clarity on the federal RTT requirements, right to criticize the Department for driving the panel toward TAP without showing them any other options, and right to remain focused, as she was throughout, on what the research really says about these models. She is the panel's MVP thus far.
- In his brief guest appearance, the governor was his usual platitudinous self, prodding the panel to get the job done while working as hard as he could to be on the side of the Department and the side of the MEA simultaneously. Hard to say what exactly the panel got out of it, to be honest.
- Deputy Commissioner Angela Faherty, who chaired the meeting, concluded the panel's work for the day by saying that they faced a series of challenges over the next two weeks. That is an understatement.
It is hard to see, frankly, how the panel is going to get this done. Following the Department's lead and simply green-lighting the TAP model would be the simplest approach, but probably not the best course of action for Maine's schools, and I say that as a fan of the TAP model. Having the panel say that TAP is the only acceptable model, even if it is a good one, is severely limiting to Maine's school districts. TAP is indeed a solid model, but also a costly one. It doesn't seem fair, as someone on the panel observed, to require that school districts looking to implement performance-based teacher evaluations use only a model that they must purchase from a vendor.
The problem is that developing anything other than an evaluation system-in-a-can model like TAP takes way more time than the panel has. Denver's custom-designed ProComp system took years to develop, for example. Knowing this, the Department is pushing TAP hard, but is getting some pushback already.
An approach the panel might think about, therefore, is to avoid limiting school districts to a specific model such as TAP, and instead approve a set of qualities or conditions that any locally-developed evaluation system must have. Districts could adopt TAP if they wanted to under such an approach, but could also adopt a model of their own design that shared some of the same features as TAP.
Under the TAP model, for instance, "individual classroom achievement growth" typically makes up 30 percent of a teacher's evaluation score, with other factors, including more traditional classroom observations, making up the balance. The panel could establish, then, that under no evaluation model can individual classroom achievement growth make up more than 30 percent of the total evaluation, and that at least 50 percent of any evaluation must come from multiple classroom observations graded against agreed-upon standards for teacher effectiveness (such as Danielson, for instance). In this way, districts could use TAP, which works in this way, but could also develop their own model based on TAP or a program like it, as long as it followed the guidelines established by the stakeholder group. By taking this approach, the panel can empower school districts to develop a number of models rather than limit them to one, while addressing some of the MEA's concern that student performance might become too much of a factor in evaluation scores.
The problem is that LD 1799, as amended by the MEA, uses the word "model" rather than a word like "criteria," and thus appears to restrict the stakeholder group to approving a specific evaluation system in its entirety. The stakeholder group does hold all the cards here, though, and were it to approve a set of criteria that the MEA can accept, I can't imagine anyone, including the AG, making too much of a fuss about what the word "model," as used in LD 1799, actually means.
In any event, yesterday represented a somewhat inauspicious start to the panel's work, but a bit of groundwork was established and the bigger issues around these evaluation models, especially from the MEA's perspective, got their first airing. There are very good people on the panel, so their remains hope that despite the short time frame and the lack of clarity about what to do and how to do it, something good can come of all this.
(By the way, is all of this even worth it? Do we stand a chance of winning an RTT grant even if the stakeholder group pulls this off? Actually, our odds do seem to be improving by the day. The Fordham Institute's Andy Smarick, who has been following RTT as closely as anyone in the nation, says that as many as 14 states may not apply in the second round. There could be money enough in the second round, he says, to fund "10-15 winners." Hmmmm....)
4:00 pm. In closing where are we? "Struggling," says Faherty. Struggling with scope, time, ill-defined federal law, few models with which to work, no real definition of what constitutes "consensus," and philosophical issues about how much of a teacher's evaluation comes from student achievement.
This panel has a pile of work to do, and about a day-and-a-half to get its work done.
A good start today, I think. It is hard to see, given the short time frame, how else it might have been done, though they seem to have ended the day with more questions than they had when they began.
3:55 pm. An excellent discussion going on about balancing the need to develop a number of good models with the more immediate "attorney general problem," as MEA's Mark Gray called it. The AG Problem is that a model needs to be approved by May 14. The panel seems interested in looking carefully at these models, but they have very little time...
3:41 pm. Faherty is trying to refocus the panel on the narrow task of approving a single model in order to satisfy the AG, so that she can sign off on the RTT application. What she wants is ONE model - just ONE, in order to get AG Mills' signature on a piece of paper. That's it. In order to keep this thing from blowing up, she is insisting that the panel can continue looking at additional models for a year if it wants to, but it needs ONE model by May 14. The department clearly wants TAP and are bringing in some folks from TAP to make their case, but the panel is still pushing back on the size of the task and the short time frame. The Maine Principal's Association is suggesting that someone try to convince AG Mills that the fact that the panel is meeting ought to be enough to get her to sign off.
3:35 pm. Remember how I said the Department had done a good job of focusing the panel? I was wrong. The panel, under the informal leadership of SAD 3's Carrie Thurston, is pushing back hard against what they see as an attempt by the Department to push them, quickly, in a certain direction. The panel is now backing up to where it began, wanting to know what exactly it is that the Department is trying to get them to do.
3:27pm. Interestingly, the Danielson framework is being given "short shrift" by Conley because, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Danielson does not use student performance data. The Department seems to be pushing the TAP model, which has raised a few hackles in here. The Department has brought the panel two models, someone observed, but only one would qualify the state for RTT. Opposition, again, is mounting.
3:20 pm. Where is TAP in place? Is it focused on urban schools or would it work in a more rural state? According to TAP, the program is in place in 13 states, including rural states such as Arkansas and South Carolina. The Department has folks from TAP coming next week to answer additional questions.
3:05 pm. Conley's TAP presentation has hit on what will be a key issue here, which is what percent of a teacher's evaluation will come from student achievement data. This is a huge issue for the MEA, which has already argued that teachers will not be able to negotiate that percent on the local level under collective bargaining. Under TAP's model, "individual classroom achievement growth" would make up 30% of a teacher's total evaluation, school-wide achievement would be 20%, and more traditional teacher observations would make up the remaining 50%. These specific percentages are not set in stone, Conley is quick to point out, but it will be interesting to see what the MEA's response is to this model.
2:50 pm. Having finished his little pep talk, the governor is out the door and the Department's Dan Conley is doing a presentation on the TAP model. Interesting that the Department is leading with this model and not Danielson, which, as I noted in an earlier post, does not use student achievement data. TAP is a great model, it will be interesting to see how it is received by the panel.
2:47 pm. MEA's Galgay has taken the governor up on his offer to take questions and is pressing him on Faherty's assertion that "approval" will be a majority rule decision by the group. Baldacci says he wants consensus and doesn't want lines in the sand, but he did not overrule Faherty and insist that the panel come to a unanimous recommendation.
2:40 pm. Governor Baldacci has joined the group, and insists that "this must be done" because "it is the future," but also insists that "teachers must be at the table." That may be tougher than it sounds given the discussion thus far.
2:35 pm. Back underway and the issue of what constitutes "approval" by the panel, an issue first brought up by MSMA''s Sandy MacArthur, is being addressed by the deputy commissioner. To her way of thinking, majority rules. This means, of course, that the MEA has no veto authority here and could potentially vote against whatever model is "approved."
There is no discussion in response.
2:20 pm. Over an hour in now and the Department's folks are now starting every sentence with the fact that they are using NEA's own research to move the group forward. That should give you some indication of how things are going.
A five-minute break and it couldn't come at a better time...
2:15 pm. About an hour in at this point, and the MEA's Chris Galgay has laid out the key issue from the union's perspective, which is that teacher evaluation is not a collectively bargained issue on the local level. The MEA pushed to have this panel created and to give it veto power over performance-based evaluation systems specifically because this is the case. What he wants is to have a model approved here to not only be the ONLY model that can be used statewide, but wants it to be very tightly constructed so that there is NO flexibility on the local level, where teachers have no bargaining power. MSMA disagrees, and wants precisely the kind of flexibility on the local level that MEA opposes.
The battle lines are being drawn...
2:05 pm. Resistance is mounting. Lot of questions coming now about what exactly the panel is to do, why it is being rushed, how the model or models approved here are actually to be used, and whether this is all about a federal money grab or not. Faherty is working to keep this thing from going off the rails...
1:55 pm. Less than an hour in, and the Department's representatives have mentioned at least a half-dozen times that they are working off the NEA's research on evaluation models. In fact, the only piece of research on teacher evaluation that the Department put forward to stakeholder group members was a report from the NEA. This is a smart move on the Department's part. It helps focus the group (the Department has identified two models from the NEA report that it intends to explore), and it defuses, at least somewhat, what is likely to be some resistance from the MEA.
1:45 pm. So what is this stakeholder group to do? Simply put, it must approve at least ONE evaluation system for teachers and principals that uses student achievement data. The panel can approve more than one model, of course, but is under the gun to get at least one approved before May 14. Deputy Commissioner Faherty is doing an admirable job keeping the group focused on this one task.
1:35 pm. The Department's Wanda Monthey is leading off by describing why it is that this stakeholder group has been assembled and why it has such a short time frame in which to complete its work. (Governor Baldacci has given the group until May 14 to agree on at least one performance-based evaluation model.) In essence, the time crunch comes from the state's need to be in compliance with federal law in order to compete for the Race to the Top program, the application for which is due June 1. If this panel fails to get that done, Maine will be ineligible for the Race to the Top competition and may face barriers to accessing other federal education funds as well.
1:10 pm. The controversial stakeholder group tasked with approving teacher and administrator evaluation systems which use student achievement data has convened in Augusta and has been brought to order by Deputy Commissioner Angela Faherty.
Our friends at MDIschools.net have put together the list of stakeholder group members, and introductions are being done as we speak.
There does not seem to be an agenda for the meeting, but we do know that Gov. Baldacci will be visiting to say a few words later today.
This panel has a pile of work to do, and about a day-and-a-half to get its work done.
A good start today, I think. It is hard to see, given the short time frame, how else it might have been done, though they seem to have ended the day with more questions than they had when they began.
3:55 pm. An excellent discussion going on about balancing the need to develop a number of good models with the more immediate "attorney general problem," as MEA's Mark Gray called it. The AG Problem is that a model needs to be approved by May 14. The panel seems interested in looking carefully at these models, but they have very little time...
3:41 pm. Faherty is trying to refocus the panel on the narrow task of approving a single model in order to satisfy the AG, so that she can sign off on the RTT application. What she wants is ONE model - just ONE, in order to get AG Mills' signature on a piece of paper. That's it. In order to keep this thing from blowing up, she is insisting that the panel can continue looking at additional models for a year if it wants to, but it needs ONE model by May 14. The department clearly wants TAP and are bringing in some folks from TAP to make their case, but the panel is still pushing back on the size of the task and the short time frame. The Maine Principal's Association is suggesting that someone try to convince AG Mills that the fact that the panel is meeting ought to be enough to get her to sign off.
3:35 pm. Remember how I said the Department had done a good job of focusing the panel? I was wrong. The panel, under the informal leadership of SAD 3's Carrie Thurston, is pushing back hard against what they see as an attempt by the Department to push them, quickly, in a certain direction. The panel is now backing up to where it began, wanting to know what exactly it is that the Department is trying to get them to do.
3:27pm. Interestingly, the Danielson framework is being given "short shrift" by Conley because, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Danielson does not use student performance data. The Department seems to be pushing the TAP model, which has raised a few hackles in here. The Department has brought the panel two models, someone observed, but only one would qualify the state for RTT. Opposition, again, is mounting.
3:20 pm. Where is TAP in place? Is it focused on urban schools or would it work in a more rural state? According to TAP, the program is in place in 13 states, including rural states such as Arkansas and South Carolina. The Department has folks from TAP coming next week to answer additional questions.
3:05 pm. Conley's TAP presentation has hit on what will be a key issue here, which is what percent of a teacher's evaluation will come from student achievement data. This is a huge issue for the MEA, which has already argued that teachers will not be able to negotiate that percent on the local level under collective bargaining. Under TAP's model, "individual classroom achievement growth" would make up 30% of a teacher's total evaluation, school-wide achievement would be 20%, and more traditional teacher observations would make up the remaining 50%. These specific percentages are not set in stone, Conley is quick to point out, but it will be interesting to see what the MEA's response is to this model.
2:50 pm. Having finished his little pep talk, the governor is out the door and the Department's Dan Conley is doing a presentation on the TAP model. Interesting that the Department is leading with this model and not Danielson, which, as I noted in an earlier post, does not use student achievement data. TAP is a great model, it will be interesting to see how it is received by the panel.
2:47 pm. MEA's Galgay has taken the governor up on his offer to take questions and is pressing him on Faherty's assertion that "approval" will be a majority rule decision by the group. Baldacci says he wants consensus and doesn't want lines in the sand, but he did not overrule Faherty and insist that the panel come to a unanimous recommendation.
2:40 pm. Governor Baldacci has joined the group, and insists that "this must be done" because "it is the future," but also insists that "teachers must be at the table." That may be tougher than it sounds given the discussion thus far.
2:35 pm. Back underway and the issue of what constitutes "approval" by the panel, an issue first brought up by MSMA''s Sandy MacArthur, is being addressed by the deputy commissioner. To her way of thinking, majority rules. This means, of course, that the MEA has no veto authority here and could potentially vote against whatever model is "approved."
There is no discussion in response.
2:20 pm. Over an hour in now and the Department's folks are now starting every sentence with the fact that they are using NEA's own research to move the group forward. That should give you some indication of how things are going.
A five-minute break and it couldn't come at a better time...
2:15 pm. About an hour in at this point, and the MEA's Chris Galgay has laid out the key issue from the union's perspective, which is that teacher evaluation is not a collectively bargained issue on the local level. The MEA pushed to have this panel created and to give it veto power over performance-based evaluation systems specifically because this is the case. What he wants is to have a model approved here to not only be the ONLY model that can be used statewide, but wants it to be very tightly constructed so that there is NO flexibility on the local level, where teachers have no bargaining power. MSMA disagrees, and wants precisely the kind of flexibility on the local level that MEA opposes.
The battle lines are being drawn...
2:05 pm. Resistance is mounting. Lot of questions coming now about what exactly the panel is to do, why it is being rushed, how the model or models approved here are actually to be used, and whether this is all about a federal money grab or not. Faherty is working to keep this thing from going off the rails...
1:55 pm. Less than an hour in, and the Department's representatives have mentioned at least a half-dozen times that they are working off the NEA's research on evaluation models. In fact, the only piece of research on teacher evaluation that the Department put forward to stakeholder group members was a report from the NEA. This is a smart move on the Department's part. It helps focus the group (the Department has identified two models from the NEA report that it intends to explore), and it defuses, at least somewhat, what is likely to be some resistance from the MEA.
1:45 pm. So what is this stakeholder group to do? Simply put, it must approve at least ONE evaluation system for teachers and principals that uses student achievement data. The panel can approve more than one model, of course, but is under the gun to get at least one approved before May 14. Deputy Commissioner Faherty is doing an admirable job keeping the group focused on this one task.
1:35 pm. The Department's Wanda Monthey is leading off by describing why it is that this stakeholder group has been assembled and why it has such a short time frame in which to complete its work. (Governor Baldacci has given the group until May 14 to agree on at least one performance-based evaluation model.) In essence, the time crunch comes from the state's need to be in compliance with federal law in order to compete for the Race to the Top program, the application for which is due June 1. If this panel fails to get that done, Maine will be ineligible for the Race to the Top competition and may face barriers to accessing other federal education funds as well.
1:10 pm. The controversial stakeholder group tasked with approving teacher and administrator evaluation systems which use student achievement data has convened in Augusta and has been brought to order by Deputy Commissioner Angela Faherty.
Our friends at MDIschools.net have put together the list of stakeholder group members, and introductions are being done as we speak.
There does not seem to be an agenda for the meeting, but we do know that Gov. Baldacci will be visiting to say a few words later today.
With the clock ticking on Maine's Race to the Top application, the state's Department of Education is calling on school officials to begin exploring the idea of teacher evaluation models which make use of student performance.
In an Informational Letter released Wednesday, the soon-to-be former commissioner, Susan Gendron, suggested that school officials take a careful look at two teacher evaluation systems, the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) and Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching. In her letter, the commissioner included a link to a paper written by the National Education Association which discusses these and other evaluation models and is worth reading, despite its authorship by an organization opposed to tying teacher pay to student achievement.
It is important that school officials reviewing the two models cited by the commissioner understand they take two very different approaches to the job of evaluating teachers.
The TAP program is by far the stronger of the two models. It is a comprehensive and fully integrated system that brings together targeted teacher training and support, thorough teacher evaluations, a career ladder model of professional advancement, and performance-based pay. As the NEA's paper notes, the TAP program is in place in districts across the county and has proven to be highly effective at improving student outcomes.
The Framework for Teaching model, though, is far more one-dimensional. It seeks to identify the various components of effective teaching, then uses that "framework" to assess and evaluate teachers. Under such a system, teachers are not evaluated for actually increasing student achievement directly, but for possessing the characteristics and skills that the Danielson framework suggests are simply correlated with increased student achievement. It is not, therefore, a pay-for-performance model. It is undoubtedly better than the evaluation systems in place in most states and school districts, but it is not a system that evaluates and rewards teachers for their success at actually increasing student outcomes.
But, because it does not directly tie teacher pay to student achievement, it has become the darling of those elements within the teacher unions which favor teacher evaluation reform, and I have little doubt it will be the first model approved by the now-infamous stakeholder group.
If I can take this opportunity to be self-serving, school officials and others who wish to read what I'd like to think is a solid overview of alternative teacher pay policies and models should read the two papers on this topic that I authored in 2007.
The first, titled Reforming Teacher Pay in Maine - Part 1: How Alternative Teacher Compensation Systems are Improving Student Outcomes, provides an overview of the concept of performance-based compensation, including a critique of the "single salary schedule" system under which nearly every teacher in the country is compensated today. The second research paper, titled Reforming Teacher Pay in Maine - Part 2:Making Alternative Teacher Compensation Systems Work, looked at best practices for performance-based teacher pay systems and made recommendations for Maine's policymakers.
Additionally, I took some time yesterday to create a new page on our GreatSchoolsforME.org website devoted to this issue. The new page has links to both of our papers on the topic, as well as links to various research organizations and publications.
We have a month to discuss a very complex and controversial topic and come to some kind of statewide consensus on it. We'd better get started.
In an Informational Letter released Wednesday, the soon-to-be former commissioner, Susan Gendron, suggested that school officials take a careful look at two teacher evaluation systems, the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) and Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching. In her letter, the commissioner included a link to a paper written by the National Education Association which discusses these and other evaluation models and is worth reading, despite its authorship by an organization opposed to tying teacher pay to student achievement.
It is important that school officials reviewing the two models cited by the commissioner understand they take two very different approaches to the job of evaluating teachers.
The TAP program is by far the stronger of the two models. It is a comprehensive and fully integrated system that brings together targeted teacher training and support, thorough teacher evaluations, a career ladder model of professional advancement, and performance-based pay. As the NEA's paper notes, the TAP program is in place in districts across the county and has proven to be highly effective at improving student outcomes.
The Framework for Teaching model, though, is far more one-dimensional. It seeks to identify the various components of effective teaching, then uses that "framework" to assess and evaluate teachers. Under such a system, teachers are not evaluated for actually increasing student achievement directly, but for possessing the characteristics and skills that the Danielson framework suggests are simply correlated with increased student achievement. It is not, therefore, a pay-for-performance model. It is undoubtedly better than the evaluation systems in place in most states and school districts, but it is not a system that evaluates and rewards teachers for their success at actually increasing student outcomes.
But, because it does not directly tie teacher pay to student achievement, it has become the darling of those elements within the teacher unions which favor teacher evaluation reform, and I have little doubt it will be the first model approved by the now-infamous stakeholder group.
If I can take this opportunity to be self-serving, school officials and others who wish to read what I'd like to think is a solid overview of alternative teacher pay policies and models should read the two papers on this topic that I authored in 2007.
The first, titled Reforming Teacher Pay in Maine - Part 1: How Alternative Teacher Compensation Systems are Improving Student Outcomes, provides an overview of the concept of performance-based compensation, including a critique of the "single salary schedule" system under which nearly every teacher in the country is compensated today. The second research paper, titled Reforming Teacher Pay in Maine - Part 2:Making Alternative Teacher Compensation Systems Work, looked at best practices for performance-based teacher pay systems and made recommendations for Maine's policymakers.
Additionally, I took some time yesterday to create a new page on our GreatSchoolsforME.org website devoted to this issue. The new page has links to both of our papers on the topic, as well as links to various research organizations and publications.
We have a month to discuss a very complex and controversial topic and come to some kind of statewide consensus on it. We'd better get started.
With the legislature finally out of Session, one would think things might quiet down in Augusta, at least on the education front, but today ended up being far more newsworthy than we had any right to expect.
First, the governor issued an interesting Executive Order today putting LD 1799's now infamous stakeholder group to work immediately. "Convening stakeholders immediately to begin considering evaluation models," the order reads, "will speed the work required in LD 1799, and will provide evidence to the federal government in evaluating Maine's reform efforts." The governor goes on to order the Education Commissioner to "convene a group of stakeholders, as defined in LD 1799," and "lead the stakeholder group in reviewing and approving, not later than May 14, 2010 at least one model for the evaluation of professional performance of teachers and principals that meets the federal Race to the Top criteria for improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance."
Clearly, the state is under some pressure to get this work done and it will be interesting to see what comes of the governor's order.
This is especially true given the far bigger news of the day, the resignation of Commissioner Susan Gendron, effective at the end of the month. I'll have more to say on the commissioner herself in the days to come, but at the very least her resignation further complicates the already complicated effort to get Maine's RTT application off the ground. The commissioner was the state's leading advocate for that effort, an effort with seemingly little support either in the legislature or in the Blaine House. The steady focus she has had on getting Maine in decent shape for the RTT competition will be sorely missed. That effort, already in trouble, is probably in even greater trouble as of today.
The commissioner is to be replaced by someone named Angela Faherty. She is apparently the Deputy Commissioner, though I don't know that I've ever met or even seen her in all the years I've been hanging around in Augusta.
First, the governor issued an interesting Executive Order today putting LD 1799's now infamous stakeholder group to work immediately. "Convening stakeholders immediately to begin considering evaluation models," the order reads, "will speed the work required in LD 1799, and will provide evidence to the federal government in evaluating Maine's reform efforts." The governor goes on to order the Education Commissioner to "convene a group of stakeholders, as defined in LD 1799," and "lead the stakeholder group in reviewing and approving, not later than May 14, 2010 at least one model for the evaluation of professional performance of teachers and principals that meets the federal Race to the Top criteria for improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance."
Clearly, the state is under some pressure to get this work done and it will be interesting to see what comes of the governor's order.
This is especially true given the far bigger news of the day, the resignation of Commissioner Susan Gendron, effective at the end of the month. I'll have more to say on the commissioner herself in the days to come, but at the very least her resignation further complicates the already complicated effort to get Maine's RTT application off the ground. The commissioner was the state's leading advocate for that effort, an effort with seemingly little support either in the legislature or in the Blaine House. The steady focus she has had on getting Maine in decent shape for the RTT competition will be sorely missed. That effort, already in trouble, is probably in even greater trouble as of today.
The commissioner is to be replaced by someone named Angela Faherty. She is apparently the Deputy Commissioner, though I don't know that I've ever met or even seen her in all the years I've been hanging around in Augusta.
MHPC is one of the education reform advocacy groups that is part of the Policy Innovators in Education Network, known informally as PIE-Net. Thinking that I just had to keep these folks up to date on the goings-on here in Maine, I sent the following email this morning. A good look back, I think , on a very bad few weeks for Maine's schools.
Hi all,
I know all of you are curious to know how Maine has been making
out getting its Race to the Top legislation enacted, being that we are a
leading candidate for Round 2 and all, so I thought I would give you an update.
We did pass our Common Core Standards bill, which contains this
line (the emphasis is mine):
The department in consultation with the state board shall establish and implement a comprehensive, statewide system of learning results , which may include a core of standards in English language arts and mathematics for kindergarten to grade 12 established in common with the other states."
So we may adopt common standards, or we may not. Consider
that box checked.
We also passed our "innovative schools" bill, which contains
this now famous section (again, emphasis is mine):
"A school administrative unit may establish and operate an innovative, autonomous public school. The school board may approve an instruction design, a school calendar, a staff selection process and a method for assessing professional development to be used in an innovative, autonomous public school that exceed or differ from, but do not conflict with, applicable statutory and regulatory requirements."
How many points do you think that will win us?
Last but not least, we just passed our bill to eliminate the
prohibition against using state assessment data in teacher and principal
evaluations, but not before our colleagues in the Maine Education Association
had an amendment tacked on which does the following:
1. Creates
a five-member stakeholder group of which the MEA is a part.
2. Empowers
that group - not the state Department of Education - to approve
evaluation models that use student assessment data.
3. Prohibits
school districts from adopting any student performance-based evaluation
system for teachers and administrators that is NOT approved by this five-member
panel, even those using student assessment data developed locally.
I am not
making this up. It passed both houses easily with this amendment attached
and awaits the governor's signature.
But that's not all.
In the midst of the debate on this bill, the state Attorney
General's office ruled that the bill, amended in this way, put the state out of
compliance with federal law, thus endangering our eligibility to apply for an
RTT grant at all. Part of the AG's opinion:
"The proposed amendment, S-515, prohibits the Department from adopting any model for teacher evaluations that includes student assessments that has not been approved by the stakeholder group. This prohibition is a potential legal barrier to linking student achievement data to teacher/principal assessment; moreover it leaves open the possibility that the stakeholder group will not approve any such model. In either case, the Department might be prohibited from adopting a model that includes student assessments. Local school units, in turn, are prohibited from using any model that has not been adopted by the Department.
It is the AG, as I am sure you all know, which must certify that
the state does not have any such barriers. So, assuming the AG is consistent
with her own office's ruling, she will likely refuse to certify that the
student-teacher data barrier has been removed, thus making us ineligible for
RTT.
The bill passed anyway.
Not wanting to miss the opportunity to twist the dagger a bit more, the MEA sent out an "action alert" this morning telling its members not to sign the MOU for RTT (the emphasis is theirs):
"Local associations will be asked to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as part of the application process for the federal Race To The Top (RTTT) grants.
MEA's Board of Directors is urging you not to sign the MOU.
MEA believes there are too many flaws and too many
unknowns in Maine's grant application. Our best advice is not to sign
until we know exactly what is in it."
It
is important to point out that they do not know "what is in it" (and neither do
the rest of us) because the state's ill-fated RTT application has yet to be
released. They don't know what the application will say, but I guess they
figured they wouldn't take any chances, and thus issued a preemptive call to
oppose it. "Too many unknowns" in the application? You don't say! The whole
thing is an unknown!
So,
that's where we are. I know many of you look to us as a model state on this
thing, so I thought I'd keep you up to date.
Hope
RTT is faring better where you are than it is here. Could it be any worse?
