AMO Meeting Summary - May 22, 2012
1:00 - 5:00 PM; Burton Cross State Office Building, Room 103
Joint meeting with Interventions/Supports Group
- DOE: Commissioner Bowen, Mark Kostin, Deb Friedman
- AMO: Kristin Wells, Rachelle Tome, Bill Hurwitch, Dan Hupp, Nancy Mullins, Barbara Powers, Paul Austin, Linda Mackenzie
- I&S: Deborah Emery, Steve Vose, Joyce Blakney, Susan Pratt, George Tucker, (Rachelle Tome and Dan Hupp)
Introductions and Review of Agenda
Following a welcome by meeting facilitator Mark Kostin, members introduced themselves. Mark then reviewed the Agenda with the members, and gave a brief overview of the roles of the various ESEA Waiver working groups in developing recommendations for the various parts of the waiver application AMOs, I&S, Educator Evaluation. He stressed the importance that US DOE places on stakeholder involvement in developing the waiver application, He noted 3 types of stakeholders: teachers and other professionals whose work is directly impacted by the accountability system; students and their representatives, including student subgroups such as students with disabilities, English language learners, economically disadvantaged students, minority students; and the general public.
Commissioner Bowen’s Comments on State Accountability
Commissioner Bowen explained his rationale for developing a new accountability system and applying for a waiver from the US DOE. The current system takes a lot of resources to implement, but doesn’t help schools. While he was frustrated earlier in the year with the treatment of 1st round waiver applicants, and expressed some concern about pursuing a waiver for Maine, he is convinced that it’s a good idea. Approval and feedback from the first round of applicants has given us some direction, and the Commissioner felt that the state should not pass up an opportunity to create an accountability system that works for Maine. We are especially interested in using a growth model, and in having a system that accommodates school systems that are moving to a standards-based model of education.
Committee Process Discussion
Members agreed to the proposed Communication Norms, adding one additional item: That members suspend their disbelief, at least momentarily. In response to a question about transparency, Mark explained that the DOE will maintain a public Website, with meeting minutes, materials, names of participants, etc.
Members agreed to allow alternates to attend meetings if the appointed member is not available, and to allow phone conferencing and possibly video conferencing as well. Members should be sure to prepare alternates to step in for them, and to get a briefing from the alternate after the meeting.
Discussion of how the group will conduct voting on recommendations was held off until a later meeting.
Flexibility Request Checklist
Mark reviewed the Flexibility Request Checklist with members, explaining who is responsible for each part of the work.
Overview of current Accountability System
Rachelle presented an overview of the accountability system currently in place. She described the various measures used to determine how schools and districts are deemed to not have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). She explained the differentiated identification process depending on the number of years a school or district might not have made AYP and the related level of technical assistance provided by the DOE. (See Powerpoint slides)
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) testing
Dan Hupp explained plans for the implementation of SBAC testing. The first summative assessment will be given in the Spring of 2015 (the 2014-15 school year). The last NECAP test will be October of 2013.
With SBAC, schools will have an option to give interim assessments as well. The interim assessments would be accessible to teachers. Dan explained that the summative SBAC assessment is secure; the interim assessment has to be purchased separately from SBAC, and the formative assessments are not secure, they are open as a resource to the public.
At this point, the working groups met separately
Interventions and Supports Workgroup
Members discussed the role of the I&S workgroup as opposed to the AMO workgroup. The AMO workgroup will make recommendations about how to identify schools that need intervention and support, including different levels (focus schools versus priority schools). The I&S group will make recommendations about how to help the identified schools,
Steve Vose explained that there are 102 CIPS schools currently at different levels (CIPS 1 through R?). Another 30 or so may be added this year. Funding provided to the state has not increased, although the number of schools increases. Maine gets about $2 million per year, with $500,000 retained at the state level to hire consultants to help schools develop improvement plans and to fund group programs for schools. For individual schools, only 3 categories of assistance can be paid for: parental involvement, teacher mentoring and professional development. It would be helpful to be able to use the funding in different ways.
Members agreed that it was important to “diagnose” what is not working at a school, what leads to poor student achievement in that school. It isn’t always the same factors could be bad curriculum, could be weak use of student data, struggling administrators, etc. The intervention would differ depending on the identified problem. Members identifies challenges, including lack of time for teachers to analyze data, the need for sustainable commitment to professional development and other interventions, the need for mentoring of school leaders not just teachers.
The goal of the group is to develop 10 guiding principles for intervention and support.
Next Meeting; Information Requested
Members established the next 2 meetings: June 13th (1-5 pm) and July 18th (full day). The next meeting may involve more information on the current I&S system, information about successful school improvement plans, perhaps information about approved waiver applications, and perhaps discussion with schools with successful school improvement efforts.
Members of the I&S Workgroup asked for information on:
- What intervention and support is currently provided, and what flexibility do we have in changing the current system they’d like a chart explaining the current plan before the next meeting
- Links to the successful waiver applications, and summaries that highlight key aspects
- Examples of school improvement plans, especially plans that have yielded good results “CIPS all-stars” Steve will put together examples and he and George will arrange to have consultants who work with the schools appear in person or by phone at a future meeting
The AMO workgroup derived the following questions during their meeting:
1. What are the possible models?
2. How will we track students? Cohorts? Students?
3. What did we learn from the initial surveys?
4. What are the non-negotiables?
Growth over 10 years. Do we have that data?
3 years of NECAP
August 1 preliminary draft
Options for gathering feedback How? What? Having different interest groups reach out to stakeholders? This group’s directive? What do we need to ask?
Need info on approved waivers What has been accepted?
Is there a standardized process for review? Google doc?
What feedback did VT get? Where is NH?
What are supersubgroups?
What will our current data system do> What is our capacity to work with the data?
What is the data warehouse?
How often will we meet?
Impact on Title III AMAOs?
Following separate meetings, the Workgroups met together briefly to report on their discussions. The Joint Meeting was then adjourned.
Meeting Summary prepared by Deb Friedman, DOE