ESEA Flexibility – Request Review Form U.S. Department of Education
ESEA Flexibility
Window 3
Request Review Form
State Request: Maine
Date: October 2, 2012
1ESEA Flexibility – Request Review Form U.S. Department of Education
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF REQUESTS
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) will use a review process that will include both external peer reviewers and staff reviewers to evaluate State educational agency (SEA) requests for this flexibility. This review process will help ensure that each request for this flexibility approved by the Department is consistent with the principles, which are designed to support State efforts to improve student academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction, and is both educationally and technically sound. Reviewers will evaluate whether and how each request for this flexibility will support a comprehensive and coherent set of improvements in the areas of standards and assessments, accountability, and teacher and principal effectiveness that will lead to improved student outcomes. Each SEA will have an opportunity, if necessary, to clarify its plans for peer and staff reviewers and to answer any questions reviewers may have during the on-site review. The peer reviewers will then provide comments to the Department. Taking those comments into consideration, the Secretary will make a decision regarding each SEA’s request for this flexibility. If an SEA’s request for this flexibility is not granted, reviewers and the Department will provide feedback to the SEA about the components of the SEA’s request that need additional development in order for the request to be approved.
This document provides guidance for peer review panels as they evaluate each request during the on-site peer review portion of the review process. The document includes the specific information that a request must include and questions to guide reviewers as they evaluate each request. Questions that have numbers or letters represent required elements. The italicized questions reflect inquiries that reviewers will use to fully consider all aspects of an SEA’s plan for meeting each principle, but do not represent required elements.
In addition to this guidance, reviewers will also use the document titled ESEA Flexibility, including the definitions and timelines, when reviewing each SEA’s request. As used in the request form and this guidance, the following terms have the definitions set forth in the document titled ESEA Flexibility: (1) college- and career-ready standards, (2) focus school, (3) high-quality assessment, (4) priority school, (5) reward school, (6) standards that are common to a significant number of States, (7) State network of institutions of higher education, (8) student growth, and (9) turnaround principles.
Review Guidance
Consultation
Consultation Question 1 Peer Response
Response: 6 Yes, 0 No
Consultation Question 1
/ Did the SEA meaningfully engage and solicit input on its request from teachers and their representatives?Ø Is the engagement likely to lead to successful implementation of the SEA’s request due to the input and commitment of teachers and their representatives at the outset of the planning and implementation process?
Ø Did the SEA indicate that it modified any aspect of its request based on input from teachers and their representatives? /
Response Component / Panel Response
Rationale / The Maine Department of Education (Maine DOE) meaningfully engaged and solicited input on its request from teachers and their representatives.
Strengths / · Both the Executive Director and President of the Maine Education Association (MEA) served on the flexibility steering committee.
· Classroom teachers served on the annual measurable objectives (AMOs) and Interventions Supports workgroups as well as the Maine Educator Effectiveness Council (MEEC). Several teachers were nominated by the MEA, which suggests that the Maine DOE did not attempt to work around the association.
· Teachers were encouraged to complete a survey to provide input on the flexibility plan. Over 1/3 of survey respondents were classroom teachers.
· Maine DOE maintains a website and listserv that teachers can access for information about the flexibility plan.
Weaknesses, issues, lack of clarity / · It is not clear if educators had adequate time to review the final AMOs and School Accountability Index (SAI). Maine DOE finalized these measures on August 30, 2012 and submitted the waiver request on September 6.
· Maine DOE did not provide examples of how the request was modified based upon stakeholder input.
Technical Assistance Suggestions / · None provided.
Consultation Question 2 Peer Response
Response: 6 Yes, 0 No
Consultation Question 2
/ Did the SEA meaningfully engage and solicit input on its request from other diverse communities, such as students, parents, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, organizations representing students with disabilities and English Learners, business organizations, and Indian tribes?Ø Is the engagement likely to lead to successful implementation of the SEA’s request due to the input and commitment of relevant stakeholders at the outset of the planning and implementation process?
Ø Did the SEA indicate that it modified any aspect of its request based on stakeholder input?
Ø Does the input represent feedback from a diverse mix of stakeholders representing various perspectives and interests, including stakeholders from high-need communities? /
Response Component / Panel Response
Rationale / Maine DOE meaningfully engaged and solicited input on its request from other diverse communities, such as students, parents, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, organizations representing students with disabilities and English Learners, business organizations, and Indian tribes.
Strengths / · Maine DOE brought together broad stakeholder groups to serve on the Steering Committee, working groups and MEEC. In addition to teachers and principals (and their associations), educators representing English Learners and students with disabilities served on several committees. Maine DOE also included members of higher education, business, and the public on its committees. The MEEC included a representative of Maine’s Indian Education program.
· The MEEC sought feedback from students in two districts on how teachers should be evaluated.
Weaknesses, issues, lack of clarity / · The Interventions and Supports Workgroup did not appear to have representation from educators or stakeholders directly representing English Learners or students with disabilities. The committee appears to be comprised primarily of DOE members. More information is needed to determine if any of the Maine DOE personnel oversee policy and programming for English Learners and students with disabilities.
· There was limited involvement of families, advocacy groups, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the formal working groups, and other attempts to solicit input from diverse communities was limited. It is not clear that Maine DOE modified the flexibility request based upon stakeholder input.
Technical Assistance Suggestions / · None provided.
Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
Note to Peers: Staff will review 1.A Adopt College-And Career-Ready Standards, Options A and B.
1.B Transition to college- and career-ready standards
1.B Peer Response, Part A Peer Response
Response: 6 Yes, 0 No
1.B Peer Response,
Part A
/ Part A: Is the SEA’s plan to transition to and implement college- and career-ready standards statewide in at least reading/language arts and mathematics no later than the 2013-2014 school year realistic, of high quality?Note to Peers: See ESEA Flexibility Review Guidance for additional considerations related to the types of activities an SEA includes in its transition plan. /
Response Component / Panel Response /
Rationale / The Maine DOE’s plan to transition to and implement college- and career-ready standards statewide in at least English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics no later than the 2013-2014 school year is realistic and of high quality.
Strengths / · The College Transitions Working Group is beginning to examine the alignment of teacher and leader standards with the common core.
· Maine DOE has developed a website for the mathematics and ELA standards as well as an overarching site for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
· The implementation timeline appears to be reasonable with initial transition occurring in 2012-2013; full implementation in 2013-2014; and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments in spring 2015. Maine is a member of SBAC.
· Maine DOE has developed resources for districts including the CCSS Noteshare Notebooks that provide grade-level targeted professional development materials. It also has created a website with information about the CCSS and maintains a listserv that educators can sign up for.
· Maine DOE is making a concerted effort to align various federal (Title I, Title II, etc.) and State funding streams with CCSS activities. These grants could be important resources to help the State build capacity and create resources that can be shared statewide.
· Maine DOE has a plan for adopting CCSS: 2011-2012 Awareness; 2012-2013 Transition; 2013-2014 Implementation; 2015 Assessment.
· Maine DOE is reorganizing to support the CCSS implementation process.
· Maine DOE has a State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) grant to support alignment of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) with CCSS. Four districts are involved with a goal of scaling statewide.
· Maine DOE affiliated with the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) for alternate assessment development, and plans to use materials developed by NCSC and the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) via an online Committee of Practitioners.
· The State superintendent has reinvigorated the Education Coordination Committee and sends out regular information on CCSS.
· Maine DOE made grants to some LEAs to promote implementation.
· The Governor’s Academy is orienting toward CCSS implementation.
· Additional DOE staff has been hired to conduct professional development for administrators.
· There are plans to expand access to college-level courses.
Weaknesses, issues, lack of clarity / · While Maine DOE has provided evidence that it has made numerous presentations and conducted several workshops around the State on the CCSS, it is not clear how the information is filtering to the classroom or how many educators have received information and training on the standards. For example, peers questioned how many educators the “Dine and Discuss” sessions are reaching and how deep are the discussions.
· Though some contacts with IHEs were discussed, Maine DOE did not describe activities and specific plans to work with the IHEs and other teacher and principal preparation programs to better prepare teachers of all types of students to the new college- and career-ready standards (pp. 35-36).
· Professional development has been limited and seems directed at Maine DOE staff. It is not clear how teachers are being supported to adopt CCSS. Workshops are planned for 2012-2013, but it is not clear how many teachers will participate or if there is a mechanism to scale statewide. Maine DOE is placing a great deal of information on the web, but it is not clear that local mechanisms exist to assist teachers in accessing and using that information.
Technical Assistance Suggestions / · Maine DOE should develop a professional development plan and timeline that will ensure all teachers will have access to information and support for CCSS implementation. The request would be strengthened if Maine DOE provided data on the number of teachers and principals who are aware of the CCSS and how many have received training.
· Maine DOE should engage IHEs in aligning teacher training and development with the new CCSS.
1.B Peer Response, Part B Peer Response
Response: 2 Yes, 4 No
1.B Peer Response,
Part B
/ Part B: Is the SEA’s plan likely to lead to all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, and low-achieving students, gaining access to and learning content aligned with the college- and career-ready standards? /Response Component / Panel Response /
Rationale / While Main DOE has engaged promising partners and resources to support teachers of English Learners and students with disabilities, it did not present enough details on how English Learners, students with disabilities and low-achieving students would gain access to and learn content aligned with the college- and career-ready standards.
Strengths / · Maine DOE is leveraging its SPDG to support special educators in writing IEPs aligned to the CCSS.
· Maine DOE is making presentations to groups that educate English Learners and students with disabilities. Maine DOE is a member of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA), SCASS and NCSC.
Weaknesses, issues, lack of clarity / · Maine DOE staff has participated in several professional development opportunities related to WIDA and has posted resources for educators. Again, there is concern that this information may not be reaching districts or classroom teachers.
· There was no specific mention of students with disabilities or English Learners in the “increased access to higher education” section of the request.
· Maine DOE’s request lacks evidence on providing professional development to prepare teachers to teach English Learners and students with disabilities to the new standards (pp. 32-33).
· There were no specific references to how Maine DOE would work to assure low-achieving students gain access to and learn content aligned with the CCSS.
Technical Assistance Suggestions / · As Maine DOE plans for statewide professional development and support, it is essential that teachers of students with disabilities and English Learners be included in that plan.
1.C Develop and Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth
1.C Did the SEA develop, or does it have a plan to develop, annual, statewide, high-quality assessments, and corresponding academic achievement standards, that measure student growth and are aligned with the State’s college- and career-ready standards in reading/language arts and mathematics, in at least grades 3-8 and at least once in high school, that will be piloted no later than the 2013-2014 school year and planned for administration in all LEAs no later than the 2014-2015 school year, as demonstrated through one of the three options below? Does the plan include setting academic achievement standards?
Note to Peers: Staff will review Options A and C.
1.C, Option B Peer Response
Not applicable because the SEA selected 1.C, Option A or Option C
Response: NA
1.C, Option B
/ If the SEA selected Option B:If the SEA is neither participating in a State consortium under the RTTA competition nor has developed and administered high-quality assessments, did the SEA provide a realistic and high-quality plan describing activities that are likely to lead to the development of such assessments, their piloting no later than the 2013-2014 school year, and their annual administration in all LEAs beginning no later than the 2014-2015 school year? Does the plan include setting academic achievement standards? /
Response Component / Panel Response
Rationale / NA
Strengths / NA
Weaknesses, issues, lack of clarity / NA
Technical Assistance Suggestions / NA
Principle 1 Overall Review
Principle 1 Overall Review Peer Response
Response: 3 Yes, 3 No