On Tuesday, the Education committee will conduct work sessions on LD's
1799, 1800, and 1801, all three of which were put forward by the
Baldacci Administration in an attempt to improve Maine's chances of
winning a federal Race to the Top grant.
There were few surprises at the public hearing last Thursday.
LD 1799, which would allow data from the state's assessment system to be used in teacher evaluations, was opposed by the Maine Education Association, but supported, though with some reluctance, by the associations representing Maine's principals, superintendents and school boards.
Chris Galgay, the MEA president, was quoted as saying that "there is little or no evidence that tying student test scores to teacher evaluations is an accurate or useful way to measure teacher effectiveness." That assertion was challenged by Rep. Nelson, who wondered out loud whether there was any legitimate way to judge the effectiveness of teachers other than by assessing whether they actually taught or not. Mr. Galgay did not have a good answer.
The truth is, of course, that in the performance-based evaluation systems now in place, student achievement data is but one of a number of elements used to determine teacher effectiveness. In Denver's ProComp system, for instance, teachers are evaluated on a whole host of indicators, only one of which is tied to scores on state tests.
Despite opposition from the MEA, the bill will almost certainly pass. Without it, Maine would not even be eligible for a Race to the Top grant, much less be competitive with other states for one.
LD 1800, which would allow the state to adopt learning standards in common with other states, will likely pass as well. Maine could adopt whatever learning standards it wished, whether they were in common with other states or not, which means the bill is largely meaningless. There was no opposition at the public hearing.
Speaking of meaningless, LD 1801, which would allow the creation of "innovative" schools run by existing school districts, deserves a unanimous "no" vote from the committee (or, better yet, it should be amended into a bill allowing charter schools). As testimony at the public hearing made clear, there is nothing that schools would be allowed to do under LD 1801 that they could not already do under existing law, so what is the point? I doubt the U.S. Department of Education will be moved by the fact that Maine is one of only 11 states without charter schools but DID pass a meaningless piece of legislation allowing "innovative" schools that are anything but.
If the committee really wants to improve Maine's chances of winning a Race to the Top grant, it should follow the advice I laid out in a recent research report: adopt charter schools, enact a slew of legislation related to teacher and administrator quality, dramatically improve our data systems, and enact legislation specifically targeted at chronically under-performing schools. Throw in alternative processes for attaining teacher certification and you're there.
Unfortunately, none of that will happen. The education establishment wants no reforms that threaten their monopoly power and the Baldacci administration clearly has no interest in taking them on. The status quo will prevail yet again, and Maine's students will continue to be ill-served.
Don't believe me? The work sessions on these bills are tomorrow...
There were few surprises at the public hearing last Thursday.
LD 1799, which would allow data from the state's assessment system to be used in teacher evaluations, was opposed by the Maine Education Association, but supported, though with some reluctance, by the associations representing Maine's principals, superintendents and school boards.
Chris Galgay, the MEA president, was quoted as saying that "there is little or no evidence that tying student test scores to teacher evaluations is an accurate or useful way to measure teacher effectiveness." That assertion was challenged by Rep. Nelson, who wondered out loud whether there was any legitimate way to judge the effectiveness of teachers other than by assessing whether they actually taught or not. Mr. Galgay did not have a good answer.
The truth is, of course, that in the performance-based evaluation systems now in place, student achievement data is but one of a number of elements used to determine teacher effectiveness. In Denver's ProComp system, for instance, teachers are evaluated on a whole host of indicators, only one of which is tied to scores on state tests.
Despite opposition from the MEA, the bill will almost certainly pass. Without it, Maine would not even be eligible for a Race to the Top grant, much less be competitive with other states for one.
LD 1800, which would allow the state to adopt learning standards in common with other states, will likely pass as well. Maine could adopt whatever learning standards it wished, whether they were in common with other states or not, which means the bill is largely meaningless. There was no opposition at the public hearing.
Speaking of meaningless, LD 1801, which would allow the creation of "innovative" schools run by existing school districts, deserves a unanimous "no" vote from the committee (or, better yet, it should be amended into a bill allowing charter schools). As testimony at the public hearing made clear, there is nothing that schools would be allowed to do under LD 1801 that they could not already do under existing law, so what is the point? I doubt the U.S. Department of Education will be moved by the fact that Maine is one of only 11 states without charter schools but DID pass a meaningless piece of legislation allowing "innovative" schools that are anything but.
If the committee really wants to improve Maine's chances of winning a Race to the Top grant, it should follow the advice I laid out in a recent research report: adopt charter schools, enact a slew of legislation related to teacher and administrator quality, dramatically improve our data systems, and enact legislation specifically targeted at chronically under-performing schools. Throw in alternative processes for attaining teacher certification and you're there.
Unfortunately, none of that will happen. The education establishment wants no reforms that threaten their monopoly power and the Baldacci administration clearly has no interest in taking them on. The status quo will prevail yet again, and Maine's students will continue to be ill-served.
Don't believe me? The work sessions on these bills are tomorrow...
