Two stories, actually the same story presented in two different ways, caught our eye last Friday. We saw the BDN story (“Study gives Maine an F for evaluating teachers“) over our first cup of coffee.
It begins:
Although a national group has given Maine a failing grade in the way it retains good teachers and removes the bad ones, the state Department of Education is hardly concerned.
According to a study released Thursday in Washington, D.C., by the National Council on Teacher Quality, Maine was one of five states, along with the District of Columbia, to be given a grade of F by the council.
The other failing states were New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Montana, according to the study.
Maine Department of Education communications director David Connerty-Marin said the state was unconcerned with the rating. Connerty-Marin described the National Council on Teacher Quality as a “politically motivated lobbying group” that opposes local control over teacher qualifications.
Connerty-Marin said Maine requires that every district have a teacher supervisory and evaluation policy in place, but that the state’s individual school districts have control over those polices.
“They don’t want the locals having control of their schools,” Connerty-Marin said of the group Thursday. “They are grading us on policies that they think are the right policies. They don’t do anything like analyze data about retaining teachers. We’re getting graded on policies, not effectiveness.”
Can you tell me, based on the above, what exactly the study was about? I couldn’t, but I could tell that it was being spun, with the DOE’s DC-M arguing for local control. Bizzare!
The second article we saw, with the second cup, was in the Portland Press Herald: Teacher tenure system faulted in most states (AP).
This article is datelined Washington, but contains many of the phrases (word-for-word) used in the BDN article. It’s shorter, more straightforward, and has less “spin”. Still, it’s difficult to grab hold of much substance.
Let’s go to the website of the National Council on Teacher Quailty.
Here’s an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the Maine report.
How is Maine Faring?
Area 1: F
Identifying effective teachers
Maine’s policies regarding the identification of effective teachers are sorely lacking. The state has only two of the three necessary elements for the development of a student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system, and Maine offers little direction to districts about teacher evaluation content, failing to require the use of subjective or objective measures, such as standardized tests, as evidence of student learning. Maine’s probationary period for new teachers is at most two years, and the state does not require any meaningful process to evaluate cumulative effectiveness in the classroom before teachers are awarded tenure.
Area 2: C-
Retaining effective teachers
Maine requires that all new teachers receive mentoring, and the state’s requirements for a nonprobationary license are a step in the right direction toward measuring classroom performance. Maine does give districts authority for how teachers are paid, but the state’s other policies regarding teacher compensation need improvement.
Maine does not support retention bonuses, compensation for relevant prior work experience, differential pay for teachers working in high-needs schools or shortage subject areas, or performance pay. In addition, the state provides only a defined benefit pension plan for teachers. Maine’s pension polices are not portable, flexible or fair to all workers. Further, retirement benefits are determined by a formula that is not neutral, meaning that pension wealth does not accumulate uniformly for each year a teacher works.
Area 3: F
Exiting ineffective teachers
Maine’s policies for exiting ineffective teachers are severely lacking. The state does not address the number of times new teachers must be evaluated annually, and it lacks policy regarding teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations. In addition, Maine offers conditional certificates, allowing new teachers who have not passed licensing tests to remain in the classroom for up to three years.
evaluations. In addition, Maine offers conditional certificates, allowing new teachers who have not passed licensing tests to remain in the classroom for up to three years.
Gosh, seems a little more complicated than we thought.
Is the “state policies (or lack thereof) versus local policies” story sufficient to explain what appear to be real problems?
We’ll note that the NCTQ seems no more sinister than other national organizations that the DOE positively fawns over in their efforts to please. Here’s the NCTQ’s funders. Recognize any names?
We’ll give the NCTQ credit for this; they seem to have struck a nerve!