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...
