Today,
The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) is
at risk of losing millions of dollars in Federal aid due to continued revisions the state keeps making to its Race to the Top plans. The big issue is how will the state roll out and implement it's new teacher evaluation program. The U.S. Department of Education
has expressed it's concerns with MSDE and has threatened the possibility of fines of near $38 million.
The state will be implementing a new and unproven evaluation system across the state this fall and it seems as if it is not ready to go.
Yet, MCEA and MCPS who did not sign on to participate in RTTT are in the position of being forced to change our Professional Growth System to comply with the revised laws spurred on by the state's RTTT participation. MCEA President Doug Prouty emailed members last week (see below) and MCPS Supt. Joshua Starr
emailed employees yesterday about our efforts to limit the damage these changes will do the PGS.
Our PGS is nationally and internationally recognized as a model educator evaluation system. In the last year, educators and administrators from Kentucky, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and China visited us to see how the PGS works and how they could implement it. The PGS has been written about in
The New York Times and
Rethinking Schools. USDE even
featured it on it's website.
So this is what the "ed reform" movement has brought us; the state meddling with a proven and respected evaluation system while trying to hurry up and finish their own unknown system for the rest of the state.
Message from MCEA President Doug Prouty about the evaluation controversy:
January 3, 2013
Dear Colleagues,
Happy New Year and welcome back! We want to be sure that you know the most current information on teacher evaluation. As you know, MCEA, MCPS, and MCAAP have been working to meet the requirements of the new state regulations brought on by Maryland’s Race To The Top (RTTT) grant and the Maryland Education Reform Act of 2010. This work has been ongoing for the past year and a half. [Please note the focus in the work of the Maryland State Department of Education is on classroom teacher and principal evaluation and not other certificated educators - thus the use of the term teacher throughout this document and the submission to the state described below].
Recent events
Last spring, MCEA, MCPS, and MCAAP submitted a proposal to the Maryland State Department of Education about how we believed our existing Teacher Professional Growth System complied with new state regulations and the Education Reform Act of 2010. That proposal was rejected. Just before Winter Break, we submitted a new proposal to meet a deadline of December 26th. This response details how we plan to meet what is required of us regarding three aspects of our evaluation system:
· the use of student achievement data
· a three tiered rating system, and
· a three year evaluation cycle
This response will be discussed by the Montgomery County Board of Education at its meeting on Tuesday, January 8th.
The State Dept. of Education required each local school system and teacher union local to provide information as to whether we had reached agreement on how we would be sure that we were in compliance with the Education Reform Act of 2010 and the applicable portions of regulations that were passed to implement Maryland’s Race to the Top program. Since MCPS and MCEA did not sign on to RTTT, the section of the regulations that stipulates a percentage system in which student achievement data must comprise 50% of a teacher’s (and principal’s) evaluation does not apply to MCPS.
We are required by the Education Reform Act of 2010 to utilize student achievement data as a “significant component”’ of the evaluation measured “from a clearly articulated baseline to one or more points in time‘’. Some guidance as to how we might meet the state’s requirements was provided in a letter sent by the state superintendent in late November. This letter included an analysis of the Teacher Professional Growth System handbook as well as several redacted evaluations which were sent to the Maryland Dept. of Education in June as a part of our work with the state on our PGS and state law and regulations.
The guiding tenet of our work to meet the state law and regulations has been to maintain the integrity of our Teacher Professional Growth System, which was designed and has been implemented to provide meaningful and timely feedback on performance, structured support for areas of concern, and a holistic rating of a teacher’s job performance that is fair, transparent, and not numerically driven. There are numerous examples of systems in other places in which a teacher can be considered for dismissal strictly on the basis of test scores. Dr. Starr, the leadership of MCPS, the other leaders of MCEA and I are committed to keeping our system intact. At the same time, we have to be mindful of the fact that failure to demonstrate that we are willing to comply with state law could result in the state model of evaluation being forced on us, which is a 50/50 split between observations and student achievement data. We believe that the state model is dramatically worse than our system.
What we have proposed
A multi-stakeholder group, including Chris Lloyd, MCEA Vice President and co-chair of the PAR Panel, two former members of the PAR Panel, a current Consulting Teacher and me, has been meeting over last year to analyze how to thread the needle of maintaining our system but complying with the state law and regulations. This group also included building principals and central office staff. In addition, meetings of the three union presidents and members of the executive leadership team occurred periodically to discuss events and strategies. The MCEA Board of Directors reviewed the proposal prior to its submission.
In order to meet the student achievement data requirement, we have proposed to bolster a part of the current evaluation system, specifically in Standards I and IV. In Standard I, one of the current criteria is, “The teacher sets quantifiable learning outcomes for students and holds him/herself accountable for ensuring students meet those objectives.” This process will be implemented more consistently, with teachers expected to set two or three outcomes each year (either individually or in grade level or course alike teams). The data to be used to measure these outcomes would be decided by the teacher(s) and must include data that can be tracked periodically from a starting point over the year. The teacher may decide which groups of students would be included in each outcome- it need not be the entirety of a teacher’s student load. The outcomes would be approved by the principal and would be discussed during post observation conferences and at a meeting prior to the completion of the evaluation at the end of the year. Progress on these outcomes would be a ‘significant component’ of an evaluation, but would not and could not be a sole determinant of the rating of the evaluation, nor will it be quantified with a percentage.
The evaluation report itself would be modified to list the outcomes on the introductory page. In addition, the narrative portion of the evaluation in Standard I would include reflection on the outcomes based on discussions during the post observation conferences and year end meeting.
In Standard IV, teachers are expected to use student achievement data to reflect on, plan, and differentiate lessons. The narrative portion in Standard IV would continue to reflect the teacher’s ability to accomplish this using a variety of data sources, as currently described in the Teacher Professional Growth System handbook.
Many of the counties in Maryland are using similar outcome setting processes as a part of their revised evaluation systems. Information and training on designing, setting, and monitoring student learning outcomes will be implemented during the spring of 2013 in preparation for the 2013-14 school year, depending on the state response to this proposal.
From its beginnings, the MCPS Teacher Professional Growth System has included student achievement as important sources of data in the evaluation process (see TPGS Handbook page 11). The modifications discussed above are intended to clarify our existing system. The TPGS Handbook says, and will continue to say, that “Standardized test scores provide one important source of data, but they cannot constitute a judgment, in and of themselves, about the performance of a teacher or the success of a school” (TPGS Handbook page 12).
We have proposed including a new rating of ‘Emerging” in our evaluation system to achieve a three-tiered rating system by differentiating those teachers who are currently rated ‘below standard’ but meet one of several criteria indicating progress toward a ‘meets standard’ rating. These criteria are already in place and have been used by the PAR Panel in determining whether or not to provide a teacher in the program a second year of CT support.
We also proposed implementing the Career Lattice program over the next several years, which gives each teacher the option of voluntarily seeking ‘Lead Teacher’ status through a process based partially on the National Board Certification process. The application would include a videotape with analysis of a lesson, recommendations from the building principal, EFR or building rep, and a colleague of the teacher’s choosing, as well as two brief essays documenting leadership demonstrated by the teacher in the school and/or school community. These applications would be assessed by a newly formed Career Lattice Panel, with equal numbers of MCEA and MCPS appointees. Once implemented, Lead Teacher status would then be a gateway for a range of career opportunities. Lead Teacher status would be added to the evaluation document as an additional rating beyond ‘meets standard’. We would then have a four tiered system. The state wants each local to adjust their ratings to a uniform system of Highly Effective, Effective, and Ineffective, but we have proposed these changes as an alternative.
We have also proposed a one year study of a change to a three year evaluation cycle from our current differentiated cycle of evaluations in years one, two, five, nine, and every five years following. We have indicated that we believe our current system allows for a more meaningful and rigorous evaluation than would a uniform three year cycle because it allows for greater attention and support for beginning MCPS teachers and teachers in need of assistance.
Next Steps
The Maryland State Department of Education is expected to respond to our submission in January. This same process/timeline is true of each local school system in the state. Based on the nature of the response, we will judge where we are and what the next step will be. If our system with the adjustments mentioned above is found in compliance with state law and applicable regulations, we will begin designing and implementing the necessary information and training programs for teachers and principals to incorporate these changes for next year. A part of this will be a number of Q & A sessions so that teachers can clarify their understanding of the changes to the system. Please keep an eye out for more information.
I firmly believe this work and the proposal we submitted maintains the integrity of our system and also demonstrates to the state our willingness and desire to be in compliance with state law and regulations.
Thanks for all you do every day for our students and each other. We will continue to keep you informed of developments as they unfold.
In Solidarity,
Doug
Doug Prouty, MCEA President
