Teachers union sabotages teacher evaluations in every county in Maryland

Maryland rejects Montgomery’s teacher evaluation plan and 8 others
By Lynh Bui
Washington Post
February 1, 2012

The Maryland State Department of Education has rejected new teacher-evaluation proposals from nine of the state’s 24 county school systems, saying that the proposals do not align with state law, federal education reforms or, in some cases, either.

Among school systems that failed to meet the state’s criteria were Montgomery and Frederick, two of the top performing districts in Maryland and the only two counties in the state to reject Race to the Top funds. The school systems had hoped that rejecting those funds would grant them more autonomy in crafting their evaluation proposals.

Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Joshua P. Starr said the state did not immediately provide a reason for rejecting the system’s proposal. He said a more detailed assessment will come next week.

Maryland education officials met with county superintendents Friday to discuss the assessments. The meeting came a day after the U.S. Department of Education released a report criticizing how Maryland has fallen behind in implementing key elements of Race to the Top, the Obama administration’s signature education reform initiative.

Much of the tension over redesigning teacher-evaluation programs in Maryland reflects the ongoing national debate over how to best tie student learning, student improvement and standardized tests to the evaluation of teacher performance.

While counties that took Race to the Top money were required to make student achievement 50 percent of the measure of teacher performance, Montgomery and Frederick only had to comply with a new state law that made it a “significant” factor in a teacher’s rating.

Starr said he worries that the state and counties have different interpretations of what “significant” should be. In its proposal, Montgomery didn’t require the use of the state’s standardized test, the Maryland School Assessment, as part of its teacher evaluation proposal but allowed it to be one of many data options principals could use.

“I’m disappointed that the strengths of the Montgomery County Public Schools system are being compromised as a result of this decision,” Starr said. “We have clearly shown over the years that a collaborative approach to teacher evaluations and support that also uses student achievement data sets the stage for improvement of student achievement.”

State Superintendent of Schools Lillian M. Lowery said in a statement that officials were “working very hard to develop fair and meaningful evaluation programs, putting student work at the very heart of how they review educators.” She added that “while there are elements of the evaluations to resolve in some instances, in some of our school systems, we continue to work with system leadership.”

A. Duane Arbogast, the acting deputy superintendent for academics in Prince George’s County, said that school system worked with its teachers’ union to find a formula that both “felt comfortable with” to submit to the state.

Under its proposal, which was also rejected by the state, teacher evaluations would have consisted of student surveys, student learning objectives and state assessments. Arbogast said the state wanted the county to use the Maryland School Assessment as 20 percent of the rating measuring student growth — not the 15 percent that Prince George’s proposed...

A clerical error--and the teachers union-- might have cost N.J. an education grant

Clerical error might have cost N.J. an education grant
Gov. Chris Christie's office is under fire for using the wrong data to fill out "Race to the Top" application
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press
Aug 25, 2010

For anyone who's ever entered the wrong number on a tax return and been denied a refund, or accidentally overtipped, here's some consolation: A silly error on New Jersey's application for the highly competitive Race to the Top education grants might have cost the state $400 million.

The federal government announced that nine states and the District of Columbia had won the coveted grants. New Jersey was the top runner-up...

But New Jersey lost all five points on one section in which officials were asked to show that the state gives a consistent percentage of its revenue to education. The application called for using data from 2008 and 2009 to make the case. New Jersey used figures from the 2010 and 2011 state budgets...

The governor also blamed the New Jersey Education Association, the state's main teachers union, for not supporting the application -- costing points that were given for having others in the state's education community on board...

Low level of teacher union buy-in dooms Colorado in Race to the Top

An Early Read on the Race to Top Winners
Education Week
August 24, 2010
Posted by guest blogger Sean Cavanagh, with contributions from Sarah D. Sparks and Stephen Sawchuk.

The results are in, and the list of Race to the Top winners in Round Two includes an eclectic mix of 10 states that had put together very different kinds of applications in their funding bids for the $3.4 billion in remaining federal funds.

The winners in this second and final round announced by the U.S. Department of Education today: the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. They join first-round winners Delaware and Tennessee.

A few common threads among the 10 victorious Round Two applicants include their promises to take bold approaches to turning around low-performing schools, and in evaluating teachers.

...Rhode Island's bid, for up to $75 million... will not allow districts to assign a student to a teacher deemed ineffective two years in a row.

Several notable finalists were left off the winner's list: California and Colorado, as well as Arizona, which had greatly improved its score from the first go-around. Colorado lawmakers had revamped their state's laws on teacher evaluation since Round One, ensuring that half of an educator's rating will be based on student performance and that ineffective teachers could be dismissed more easily.

But my colleague Stephen Sawchuk notes that Colorado's level of union buy-in dropped significantly from the first round—the reviewers didn't look favorably on that disconnect in Round One.

Did the teachers union hold back California from Race to the Top funds? Very likely, since they clearly opposed legislature's efforts to qualify

15 States Plus D.C. Are Named Race to the Top Finalists
By Michele McNeil
March 4, 2010

And the highly anticipated Round One finalists are...

Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The Final 16 beat out 25 other states and earned the highest scores from the peer reviewers, who awarded points based on a 500-point grading scale that judged states' commitments to improve teacher effectiveness, data systems, academic standards, and low-performing schools.

The list of finalists is supposed to reflect U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's promise that he would set a very high bar for this education-reform competition, which has become one of the Obama administration's most high-profile policy levers. At stake is $4 billion from the economic-stimulus package approved by Congress last year, not to mention bragging rights.;;

At last! Bill passes allowing California schools to join Race to the Top and use student test scores in teacher evauations

'A' for education effort
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, January 8, 2010


As far as education reform is concerned, 2010 is off to a good start. The California Legislature approved important reforms for California's application for federal Race to the Top funds on Tuesday, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed them on Thursday.

It's amazing what Sacramento can do with the proper motivation (like up to $700 million in federal grant money).

The Legislature was always going to approve SBX5 1, the basic nuts-and-bolts reforms that were required for the state's application. The bill identifies schools that are performing weakly and requires them to pursue improvements, and allows schools to link student performance data with teacher evaluations. But the powerful California Teachers' Association hated SBX5 4, which empowered parents to bring reforms to troubled schools and allows students in the 1,000 worst-performing schools across the state to transfer out - even across district lines. It's a small, and welcome, miracle that SBX5 4 managed to squeak past.

Now comes the hard part.

California's educational system is still structurally dysfunctional, and neither these new laws nor all the federal money in the world will change that. (Though speaking of money, that's a problem too - education is likely to be back on the chopping block when budget battles commence in Sacramento.) As helpful as the federal money will be, that dysfunction can only be solved by state and local leaders, most of whom are hesitant. We've got a lot of work left to do.

Assembly OKs bills to change California schools

Assembly OKs bills to change California schools
LA Times
By Patrick McGreevy and Howard Blume
January 5, 2010

Reporting from Los Angeles and Sacramento - Despite strong objections from teachers unions, the state Assembly on Tuesday night approved changes to California schools that would give parents more power to transfer their children from badly performing campuses and petition for fixes that could include removing principals.

The changes are intended to help California win a share of $4.3 billion in new federal funds that will be available through the Race to the Top program. The Obama administration is using the promise of that money to push states into adopting education reforms the president and his aides favor.

The legislation will signal to President Obama "that California is ready to experiment with promising reforms," said UC Berkeley education professor Bruce Fuller, although he added that the legislation does not go far enough...